248 The Monroe Doctrine 



yer's own limitations. It would not have been made 

 if he had met the Justices of the Supreme Court, 

 for instance ; but even on the unfounded supposition 

 that his remark was well grounded, it would have 

 had little more significance than if he had said that 

 he had not yet met a dentist who agreed with Mr. 

 Olney. The Monroe Doctrine is not a question of 

 law at all. It is a question of policy. It is a ques- 

 tion to be considered not only by statesmen, but by 

 all good citizens. Lawyers, as lawyers, have ab- 

 solutely nothing whatever to say about it. To argue 

 that it can not be recognized as a principle of inter- 

 national law, is a mere waste of breath. Nobody 

 cares whether it is or is not so recognized, any more 

 than any one cares whether the Declaration of In- 

 dependence and Washington's farewell address are 

 so recognized. 



The Monroe Doctrine may be briefly defined as 

 forbidding European encroachment on American 

 soil. It is not desirable to define it so rigidly as 

 to prevent our taking into account the varying de- 

 grees of national interest in varying cases. The 

 United States has not the slightest wish to estab- 

 lish a universal protectorate over other American 

 States, or to become responsible for their misdeeds. 

 If one of them becomes involved in an ordinary quar- 

 rel with a European power, such quarrel must be 

 settled between them by any one of the usual meth- 

 ods. But no European State is to be allowed to ag- 

 grandize itself on American soil at the expense of 

 any American State. Furthermore, no transfer of 



