H. The Monroe Doctrine is supported by experience. A. Under it the Latin-American republics have been able to continue their independent existence. and have grown and prospered free from the domination of any European Power.

B. It has been of great value to the United States.

1. It has made for our peace and prosperity.

2.

It has added to our prestige and strengthened our position among the world powers.

3. It has given us moral supremacy in the western hemisphere.

C. It has made for international peace.

It has prevented the old-world Powers from bringing their quarrels into the new.

III. The Doctrine is still a necessary part of our foreign policy.

A. It is still necessary for self-preservation.

I.

To abandon it would not only impair our prestige among nations but would invite danger from foreign aggression.

a. It would be necessary to increase our army and

navy.

b. The mere fact that the Doctrine has existed has relieved us from this necessity so far.

2. It is made more necessary than ever before by our
duty to preserve the neutrality of the Panama
Canal.

B. It is essential to the welfare of Central and South
America.

The need of European Powers for more territory
would soon bring about in South America a
repetition of what has happened in Africa, if
the Monroe Doctrine did not exist to prevent
it.

The argument that it would be to our advantage
and that of Latin-America if these republics
were to become European colonies is untenable.
a. These peoples are strong and progressive.
b. They have a right to an independent existence.

ан

IV. There is no foundation for the attitude of hatred and suspicion that exists among some of the peoples of Central and South America toward the Monroe Doctrine. When we have intervened in the affairs of these republics it has been done in a disinterested manner and has been for the benefit of all concerned. In so far as the Doctrine applies to Argentina, Brazil and Chile, it is never likely to be enforced, both because these countries are fully able to protect their own interests and because they are so remote from the United States as to make any violation of the Doctrine with respect to them of little harm to our interests.

V. To invite the Latin-American republics to share with us GK the responsibility of maintaining the principles of the Monroe Doctrine on the American continents would be impracticable.

It is not likely that many of them would be willing to accept the responsibility

B. To join with some of them, say with Argentina, Brazil and Chile, in maintaining the Doctrine on behalf of the others would excite jealousy and suspicion among the remaining republics.

NEGATIVE.

I. The Monroe Doctrine is supported neither by reason nor by authority.

A. It has no place in international law.

I. It is contrary to international law in that it per-
mits us to intervene in affairs between other
nations where we are not concerned.

B. It is not supported by the laws of the United States.
I. It has never received legislative sanction.

It has not been uniformly supported in practice.
It is not supported by the practice of other nations.
I. It has been distinctly repudiated by some.

D. It has been expanded beyond the limits set by
Monroe.

K.

Monroe did not threaten to use force.

He did not guarantee to maintain existing boundaries.

The circumstances which called it forth have ceased to exist.

1. The Holy Alliance no longer exists.

2.

All parts of America are now under the rule of civilized nations.

F. The Doctrine is inconsistent.

1. The United States forbids intervention in Central and South America but retains the privilege of interfering in old-world affairs.

II The Doctrine is not supported by experience.

A. It has not been to the advantage of the Central and
South American republics.

European colonization would have made for stable

government and for the development of commerce and natural resources.

B. It has been to the disadvantage of the United States. It has been a constant menace to friendly relations both with South America and with European Powers.

2.

It has been of no use to us in maintaining peace and safety.

There is no reason why we should maintain the Monroe
Doctrine in the future.

A. There is no longer any necessity for it.

There is no danger of colonization by any European
Power.

2. The peaceful colonization by European immi-
grants that is now going on means a higher
type of civilization, and more efficient govern-
ment, and is also the best security against
foreign invasion.

The United States is not justified in continuing to declare it.

I. It is an unwarranted interference with the right of the other American governments to do as they please.

C. Our claim that in continuing to declare this doctrine we are acting only in the interests of the LatinAmerican republics is no longer recognized.

I.

2.

Our course in respect to Santo Domingo, Cuba, the Philippines and the securing of territory for the Panama Canal makes such a declaration seem inconsistent.

The Latin-American countries feel that we are actuated by a desire for power and so they hate and fear us.

IV. To continue to maintain the Monroe Doctrine will be greatly to our disadvantage.

A. It will be necessary to increase our navy in order

to enforce it.

B. It puts on us the responsibility of maintaining order in these weaker republics and seeing that they meet their just obligations.

Such a course is contrary to the principles of international relations.

It may result in making Argentina, Brazil and Chile our enemies and this, with their growing commercial and naval strength might some day be disastrous for us.

It would be to the best advantage of the United States to abandon the Doctrine entirely and join with these Central and South American republics for mutual helpfulness and defense.

A. If this is not practicable we could at least enlist Argentina, Brazil and Chile with us to prevent foreign invasion and to defend the weaker countries. I. There is every reason to believe that they would favor such an alliance.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

An asterisk (*) preceding a reference indicates that the entire article or a part of it has been reprinted in this volume. Many of the magazine articles and pamphlets listed here, as well as similar material that may be published after this volume is issued, may be secured at reasonable rates from the Wilson Package Library operated by The H. W. Wilson Company.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Independent. 77: 310. Mr. 2, '14. Both Sides; Debate: Resolved, That the Monroe Doctrine Should Be Abandoned.

Affirmative and negative briefs are given.

Gilman, Daniel C. James Monroe. pp. 253-80. Bibliography by J. F. Jameson. Houghton, Mifflin. 1883.

Ringwalt, Ralph C. Briefs on Public Questions. pp. 84-92. Longmans. 1913.

Briefs are also included.

Shurter, Edwin DuBois, and Taylor, Carl Cleveland. Both Sides of 100 Public Questions Briefly Debated. pp. 55-7. Hinds, Noble & Eldredge. 1913.

GENERAL REFERENCES

Books, Pamphlets and Documents

Adams, Charles Francis. Monroe Doctrine and Mommsen's Law. Houghton, Mifflin. 1914.

Appears also in the American Society of International Law. Proceedings: 1914: 22-32.

Beard, Charles A. American Government and Politics. pp. 333-7. Macmillan. 1911.

Blakeslee, George H., ed. Clark University Addresses, November, 1913. G. E. Stechert & Co. 1914.

Many of these papers also appear in the Journal of Race Development for January, 1914.

Blakeslee, George H. Our Relations with South America and How to Improve Them. No. 76. 12p. pa. Am. Ass'n for International Conciliation, Sub-Station 84, New York City. March, 1914.