Evening Republican, Volume 22, Number 266, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 November 1919 — Monroe and Hay Doctrines Practically Identical in Their Principles [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Monroe and Hay Doctrines Practically Identical in Their Principles

By Representative JULIUS KAHN of Califo/nia

The United States during its comparatively brief history has formulated two distinct fundamental foreign policies. One is known as the Monroe doctrine; the other, the Hay doctrine. In principle the two doctrinerafelTf^ Onerefers to the cduhtries of Central and South America, the other to Cluna. The Monroe doctrine was intended to protect the Latin American states against European aggression. It was never intended to obstruct cr to regulate the commerce or social relations between the republics bn,, the western hemisphere and the countries of. Europe

and Asia. As a matter of fact the European countries in many instances have developed a much more extensive trade with Latin America than has our own country. Under the Monroe doctrine our citizens are not given any superior or preferential position in regard to the commerce of the financial and social relations of the nations of the western hemisphere. The Hay doctrine was intended to prevent injustice to China. It attempted to preserve the territorial integrity of the Chinese empire and secure the maintenance of the principle of equal commercial opportunity for all nations that might desire to secure trade in China. The latter principle became’known to the w orld as the policy of the “open door.’ There was never any attempt either in the Monroe doctrine or the Hay doctrine to secure special privileges for ourselves in th^ - countries of Latin America or China. On the contrary, we as a nation have always intended that all maritime countries should enjoy commercial, financial and industrial rights, opportunities and privileges in thA countries included in the Monroe doctrine and the Hay doctrine.