Obrázky stránek

announcement alone, and his view prevailed. The message, probably drafted by Adams, opposed any extension of the monarchical system by interference with independent republics on this side of the water, and, having in mind Russia's attempt to push down her boundary in the old territory of Oregon, asserted that there was no longer room for future colonization by European governments in the Western Hemisphere. 1 That is the Monroe Doctrine as originally proclaimed. Later, on, occasion gave rise to the extension of the doctrine in two instances. On one occasion some filibusters, who had gotten temporary control of Yucatan, offered to sell it to President Polk. When he said to them “I do not want Yucatan,” they threatened to sell it to France or England. To this threat Polk responded, “No, you will not; we will not permit it.” It was Polk who introduced that new feature of the Doctrine. Again, in my administration, a resolution was introduced in the Senate demanding to know the circumstances under which certain lands on the shores of Magdalena Bay in Southern Califor

1 The language of Monroe's message is:

“The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power.

“We should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other nanner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."

nia were being taken over by a syndicate. It was reported that the Japanese were trying to get a base there. On investigation the State Department found the facts to be the following. A syndicate, which had acquired some thousands of acres on Magdalena Bay as an investment, were disappointed in their venture and attempted to unload. The attorney, in whose hands they had placed the matter, tried unsuccessfully to sell the property to a Japanese company, and thereupon told the “cock and bull" story about a Japanese corporation trying to acquire the land with a view to turning it over to the Japanese Government. But the Senate passed a resolution to the effect that outside nations could not be allowed to acquire strategic points near the United States and thus endanger its interests. I do not object to this extension of the Monroe Doctrine. On the contrary I think it is a good thing. But the spirit of the League covenant would prevent that sort of transaction; though, if we desire our view of the matter to be doubly fortified, I have not the slightest doubt that we could get it specifically recognized in the covenant.

The Monroe Doctrine has never been violated, except when France, under Napoleon III, seized Mexico. That trespass was shortlived; for when we got through with the Civil War and sent Sheridan to the border, France withdrew. The Monroe Doctrine, in so far as it forbids the overthrow of independent governments, is in accord with the principles of any league of nations thus far proposed. It is covered over as with a blanket by Article X of the present covenant. Therefore, if any government did attempt to come over here to violate it — and when you are in the Senate you just see them coming — we could, under the provisions of the League, summon the united forces of the

League to prevent it. We would not be compelled to act as the sole policeman of this hemisphere, as we are now under the Monroe Doctrine. Instead of the doctrine being imperiled, it is strengthened. Its violation would, in every case except that of the sale of territory, be a direct violation of the legal rights of one of the nations of this hemisphere and would be a case for the League Court, brought by the assailed nation against its assailant. The judgment would be one which the United States would probably be delegated to enforce, acting exactly as it does in enforcing the Monroe Doctrine independently.

President Wilson said that a league of nations would extend the Monroe Doctrine to the world. Now, if it is extended to the world, I presume it would remain in the Western Hemisphere. The object of such extension of the doctrine would be to prevent the very thing which the United States resents, namely, the overthrow of weaker nations by force, and that is what all this machinery is provided for. The language of Article X is: “The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression, the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.”

This is a declaration against the disturbers of political independence and territorial integrity everywhere. I cannot read it in any other way. If that be so, the League and the United States will be maintaining the same thing, and signing the treaty will only give to the United States the protection of the League in its traditional attitude.

When the Monroe Doctrine was declared by the United

States, many American statesmen thought that it would certainly involve us in constant wars. For nearly a century, however, it has been peacefully and successfully maintained. Not a shot has been fired by the United States, not a soldier of the United States has been killed or injured in support of it. Its mere announcement, coupled with our known determination to enforce it, has dispensed with the necessity for the exercise of force.

It is a mistake to suppose that, under the League covenant, the armies of the United States are to be called into distant countries. We must expect the Executive Council to be reasonable in its recommendations in this respect not only because it will wish to be just but because it will want to act promptly in suppressing disturbance and the threat of war, and it can do this best by calling upon nations which are close at hand and which can do the work of the League most conveniently and economically. Moreover, with the unanimity required of the Council by a proper construction of the covenant, the presence of our representative in that Council will naturally make certain only a proper assignment of the League's work to the United States. The assumption that membership in the League will involve us in frequent wars is directly contrary to its purpose and natural operation. Its potential primitive force will prevent the coming of war.

Finally comes the question, my friends, whether we are willing to run the risk involved in joining the League. How much risk is there? I have tried to show that the risk is the danger of a boycott, the cost of a boycott, divided up between all the nations of the League, the risk involved in consenting to limit armament, after we have learned and consented to that limit, and the agreement to pay the

expenses of a secretariat of the League jointly with other nations. As a consideration, we secure the strength of the union of nations in common action and a common purpose to suppress war and make peace permanent.

I appeal to the women who hear me: Do they want war again? Are they not willing that we should make concessions now in order that we may avoid war ten and twenty years hence? Do they wish their children and their grandchildren subjected to the suffering that we have seen England and France and Italy undergo? It not this the time when enduring peace is to be born — when everybody is impressed with the dreadful character of war, and the necessity for avoiding it, when all the nations are willing to make concessions? Isn't now the time to take our share of the responsibility and say to our brothers :

“ We realize that the sea no longer separates us but is become a bond of union. We know that if a war comes to you, our neighbor, it will come to us, and we are ready to stand with you in order to keep off that scourge of nations. In the love of our brother we will do our share as men and women conscious of the responsibility to help along mankind, a responsibility which God has given this nation in giving it great power."



The practical working of this covenant will be to suppress and avoid most wars. Of course, hypotheses can be imag

1 Address at the National Congress for a League of Nations at the Odeon, St. Louis, Feb. 25, 1919.

« PředchozíPokračovat »