Britain, she had a perfect right to do so, and the United States had no right to interfere in the matter. This principle might apply to Argentina, at the present time, but such an act of selling a portion of her territory to a European state would not have been tolerated by the United States in 1823, under any circumstances; for Mr. Monroe then said in no uncertain words, that, "any attempt on their part (Europeans) to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere (would be) dangerous to our peace and safety."

On account of changed conditions in South America at the present time, there is a growing disposition on the part of some well informed Americans to limit the territorial extent to which the Monrce Doctrine should apply to the states that lie to the northward of the Amazon River; but such a limitation would be met with difficulties surpassing, in my opinion, those we should attempt to escape. By holding a protectorate over this restricted field only, we throw out of consideration all fellowship with the states to the southward of this line of demarcation, at once causing jealousies among the larger and more important of the South American republics, making them enemies of our defensive policy as selfish in its nature, and would most likely tend to add their moral support to our many commercial rivals and antagonists.

Leading statesmen of Brazil and other South American republics have declared that the Monroe Doctrine is discredited in the republics for whose benefit it was devised, not that they do not appreciate the good intentions of the United States, but they deny the right of this nation to appoint itself a guardian over their welfare. A doctrine founded upon the principle laid down by James Monroe, but giving the right of a protectorate to the powers in general and not to any country in particular, would be the ideal doctrine, in the belief of the people of Latin America. As exemplifying the interests and aspirations of the South Americans in this connection I would relate the following:

On the 15th day of November, 1894, the fifth year of the foundation of the republic of Brazil, in the presence of the representatives of the principal American republics, including the United States, was laid in the city of Rio de Janeiro, the corner stone of a monument to American solidarity. Under this stone this official record lies: "The monument which will be erected on this spot in which this stone is laid, and which will symbolize the political union of the different nations of the continent of Columbus,

will be surmounted by the figure of James Monroe, author of the celebrated doctrine known by his name, which teaches that the nations of the new continent should unite for the purpose of preventing any undue interference of the nations of Europe in the internal affairs of America. Around the principal figure will be grouped the great national liberators of America, Washington, Jefferson, Juarez, Toussaint L'Ouverture, Bolivar, Jose Bonifacio and Benjamin Constant."

I give you this incident and picture to study in contrast with another view depicting the scowling faces of many South Americans, from whom we are just now seeking commercial advantages, who spurn the foreign policy of the United States as it now stands, shun its commercial policy and belittle its domestic policy.

No, it were better in my opinion, to maintain the original jurisdiction of the Monroe Doctrine, but to recognize the fact that many of the twenty other American republics are no longer the weaklings they were when the policy was formulated, unable to defend themselves, but are now strong enough to share in the common defense of the continent, and act in consonance with them in maintaining the political rights of all.

We cannot, however, with propriety form an "alliance," for that word has been tabooed by an unwritten law of the land; but we can engage in an "entente," as foreigners call it, with the republics of South America that will give them a share in the responsibility of maintaining a policy which looks to the general good of all parties concerned.

Let us form then, not an alliance, but a "concert of action" after the principles of the Monroe Doctrine, similar to that established in Europe for the support of the doctrine known, there, as "the balance of power," which will show that all the states interested hold the same opinion regarding this doctrine. The moral effect of such an "entente" will be sufficient to stay the hand of any European nation, which may seek political annexation of American territory.

Aside from all considerations of our own self-interests, should the United States arrogate to herself the right to dictate a policy to the Latin-American states, which concerns their vital interests quite as much as our own, and which they resent as "bossism,” now so universally abhorred, and which is belittling to their selfrespect? Should we not, on the other hand, urge such powerful nations as Argentina, Brazil and Chile, and such others as may

be useful to the cause, whenever they may be able to maintain stable governments for a sufficient length of time to warrant it, to join with us in carrying out a general policy that is of mutual advantage to all republics on the continent? Call this part of our international policy by the name of the Monroe Doctrine, if you will, or by the term "America for the Americans," which will probably better please our confreres in the south, and at the same time be in accord with the general principle of the Monroe Doctrine.

Having made a compact with the South American republics as suggested the United States would be in a better position to devote attention to those matters which more especially affect her interests at home and in nearby states, where foreign aggression would jeopardize its vital interests.

There is a field, in which the interests of the United States as far as they relate to the basic principle of the Monroe Doctrine— "self-preservation" are paramount, the protection of which cannot be shared with any other nation. This district comprises the countries lying contiguous or adjacent to our own, bordering on the Caribbean Sea or the Gulf of Mexico. The right of the United States to protect these countries from foreign aggression has been recognized in many ways by European countries, and the protection of "the father of republics" has been called for, and accepted so many times, as to establish this policy of the American government as an inalienable right. Notable instances were when the United States drove the French out of Mexico in 1865, and again when Spain was forced to give up her control in Cuba in 1898.

But aside from the fact that "self-protection," the basic principle of the Monroe Doctrine, compels the United States to take cognizance of the political affairs of Mexico, the Central and South American countries bordering on the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, we have assumed an obligation here in behalf of the interests of the whole world, that makes it imperative that these countries and seas shall be under the supervision of the United States, and we have also by treaty stipulated that no other country shall share in this protectorate. By the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, and the one recently made with Panama confirming its main features, the United States agrees, not only that the American "canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and

of war of all nations," but, guarantees that "the canal shall never be blockaded nor shall any right of war be exercised nor any hostility be committed within it. The United States, however, shall be at liberty to maintain such military police along the canal as shall be necessary to protect it against lawlessness and disorder." This is a most sweeping assumption of responsibility, and the fact is the United States cannot protect the world's interests in the Panama Canal, without maintaining naval control of the seas that wash her shores on the south, as well as holding supervision of the foreign relations of the countries bordering on those seas.

The Caribbean Sea holds the base of the American fleet at Guantanamo, Cuba, and its advance base at Culebra, Porto Rico. In fact all the essentials for properly defending the canal lie in the region covered by its waters and those of the Gulf of Mexico. For all military purposes, therefore, these seas must be considered "The greater Panama Canal Zone," and the naval policy of the United States the only guide to perfect peace within their limits.

In defending the continental policy of "America for the Americans" the United States will have ample cause for keeping up an efficient navy, and to protect the seven thousand miles of coast line, including "the greater Panama Canal Zone," she will need every ship that our non-military people will authorize to be constructed.

It has been well said that the Monroe Doctrine is as strong as the navy of the United States, and in view of the fact that our countrymen insist on maintaining but a small navy as compared with those that might be brought against it in combination, our people should avoid creating enemies, who might be tempted, in order to protect their own interests, to form an alliance with more power than we could bring to bear against them. In this connection I would recall the visit of Senator Root to South America in 1906, which, at the time, produced a friendly feeling between the North and South Americans, that lately has been greatly augmented by the forceful presence of his then chief, President Roosevelt, in that country. The sojourn of these two greatest of American statesmen in the South, has done more to cement the ties of fellowship between the two sections of the continent than anything that has occurred in the political lives of its people in many years. Dr. Edward Everett Hale once said of

the first visit, that it was the most important event that had taken place in the history of the country during the first decade of the century, not excepting the peace of Portsmouth, and nothing has yet arisen in the second decade, which, I believe, will have greater influence in strengthening this feeling than the expedition of Colonel Roosevelt to South America. As this last occasion took place at a significantly opportune moment, just before the opening of the Panama Canal, when we are about to inaugurate a new departure in our foreign trade relations, its commercial value is very important.

Let the United States follow up these auspicious visits of our countrymen to the Southland, and, in the words of the Hon. John Barrett, director of the Pan-American Union, 'take advantage of the opening of the Panama Canal, to signalize formally, as it were, the beginning of a new Pan-American era in which the Monroe Doctrine, which represents the dictum of one government in the family of nations, shall evolve into a greater Pan-American doctrine, which shall represent the mutual interest and protection of all."

It is better to make friends than to build guns.

Annals of the American Academy. 54: 28-56. July, 1914

Monroe Doctrine and Its Application to Haiti.
William A. MacCorkle

A distinguished writer in advocating the abrogation of the Monroe Doctrine speaks of it as if all danger to the South and Central American republics was over. Permit a little plain speaking on this subject, for it is sometimes helpful in the great as well as in the small affairs of the world. I believe if it had not been for the promulgation and the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine by this republic, there would not today be on the continent of South America or in Central America a government independent of European control. Let us look at the situation of today throughout the world, and ascertain if there is any change in the desires of the nations since the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine. The earth hunger of the European countries is fiercer than ever in its history. Their vastly increasing populations demand an enlargement of their national life, and the peoples of