NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 288, 5 September 1928, Page 10

NOTES OF THE DAY

General approval will’ be given to the site selected for the Wellington Citizens’ War Memorial. Situated on an island facing the entrance to Parliament Buildings, it will occupy a dignified position worthy of the hallowed memories it will perpetuate. When the proposed street improvement scheme, in that locality is given effect to, the memorial will occupy a prominent position in one ot the most interesting and attractive quarters of the capital city. Being adjacent to the Houses of Parliament, the importance of the site is practically .assured for all time. The city is under an obligation to the Prime Minister and his colleagues for solving the Memorial site difficulty in this admirable and generous way.

The Labour-Socialist Party rarely misses an opportunity to discredit its own country. A cable message which appears this morning states that the London Morning Herald has published an article entitled “Immigrant starved to death in New Zealand, t - gether with a letter from the secretary of the Waitomo Labour 1 arty, adding that the incident is one of many, as hundreds of starving men are wandering over the country.” It is significant that the people o'f New Zealand are quite unaware that such a dreadful state of affairs exists in their own country. The grossly misleading reference to the Dominion's army of starving people is calculated to damage the good name of New .Zealand amongst the working classes in England. The Morning Herald, the mouthpiece of Britain s extreme Labour movement, presumably played up the story in characteristic style, and drew the inevitable moral of the evils ot a capitalistic Government. To the average citizen, it surpasses comprehension why the Labour-Socialist Party should take such pains to deliberately distort the facts regarding conditions m New Zealand, which is unquestionably one of the most prosperous countties in the world to-day. In the interests of the Dominion, this message to the London Labour daily should be investigated to the full, and steps taken to correct the bad impression which must be caused by such a flagrant distortion of the truth.

Costa Rica’s request to the League of Nations for a definition of the Monro Doctrine, if acceded to, would have brought the League directly into conflict with a strong sentiment in the United States. The Monro Doctrine, in its essence, is that European Powers shall not be permitted by the United States to intervene in the concerns of the South American Republics. The Doctrine had its origin in the suggestion made in 1823 by Mr. Canning, Britain s Foreign Minister, to the American Minister in London that any attempt by Euiope to decide the fate of States so nearly connected with the United States by community of geographical and political interest as the South American Republics, ought to be most jealously watched. 1 His remark was occasioned by the contemplated action , ot the. Holy Alliance, comprising the rulers of Russia, Austiia, .Prussia, and France to help Spain subdue her rebellious South American colonies. The outcome of the suggestion was the declaration by President Monro, in his annual message, that America “could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing the lecently-declared Republics of South America, “or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European Power, in any other light than as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towaids the United States.”

'rhe Monro Doctrine, as this declaration has come to be called, was described by Dana, the greatest American writer on international law, as “only the opinion of the Administration of 1823, having ticqiiired no legal form or sanction.” While the United States has maintained its Monro Doctrine attitude towards European intervention in South American affairs, it has not felt itself restrained from taking a band. Tt has intervened in, Nicaragua and it still maintains a strong military force there. 'I he Southern Republics. have neither adopted nor endorsed the Monro Doctrine, and their statesmen have lately pointed out this fact. 1 hey have stated plainly that the Monro Doctrine is purely a unilateral declaration of policy. It cannot, therefore, be regarded as a treaty in the sense of an arrangement made by and between two or more Powers. Had the League of Nations attempted to define the Monro Doctrine, the definition probably would have been quoted for or against American intervention in South America. The League would then have found itself interposed between the pretensions of the United States and the resentment of those pretensions by the South American Republics. There would be danger of its action being interpreted to the North American people as European interference in South American affairs. The League has been very wise to avoid the possibility of such a situation, because its influence with America would have been impaired without the nrosoect of -achieving any counteracting benefit.