Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of international engagements, such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine, for securing the maintenance of peace. This clause did not serve the purpose for which it was intended, and a heated controversy at once arose as to the meaning of the language employed. When the treaty came before the Senate this clause was the object of attack, and Senator Lodge included among the fourteen reservations which he proposed the following one on the Monroe Doctrine: The United States will not submit to arbitration or to inquiry by the assembly or by the council of the League of Nations, provided for in said treaty of peace, any questions which in the judgment of the United States depend upon or relate to its long-established policy, commonly known as the Monroe Doctrine; said doctrine is to be interpreted by the United States alone and is hereby declared to be wholly outside the jurisdiction of said League of Nations and entirely unaffected by any provision contained in the said treaty of peace with Germany. The recognition of the Monroe Doctrine by the League of Nations, taken in connection with the Senate's assertion of the exclusive right to interpret its meaning, has caused some of the Latin-American countries to delay joining the League until the Monroe Doctrine is clearly defined. In February, 1920, Salvador brought this subject to the attention of the United States in a formal note in which she argued that, as the Monroe Doctrine was so variously interpreted by prominent thinkers and public men even in the United States, it should be officially defined.[298] In reply Salvador was referred to what President Wilson had said on the subject of the Monroe Doctrine in his address of January 6, 1916, before the Pan American Scientific Congress at Washington.[299] These remarks have already been quoted in Chapter VIII.[300] Salvador was informed that no further definition was deemed necessary. The speech referred to may, therefore, be considered the latest official interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. FOOTNOTES: [289] Moore, "Digest of International Law," Vol. VI, p. 404. [290] _Ibid._, p. 427. [291] _Political Science Quarterly_, Vol. XI. p. 3. [292] "Messages and Papers of the Presidents," Vol. VII, p. 32. [293] Foreign Relations, 1870, pp. 254-260; Moore, "Digest of International Law," Vol. VI, p. 431. [294] "Treaties and Conventions of the United States" (Compiled by W. M. Malloy), vol. II, p. 2032. [295] Moore, "Digest of International Law," Vol. VI, p. 427. [296] "Addresses on International Subjects," Elihu Root, p. 120. [297] "Addresses on International Subjects," by Elihu Root, p. 425. [298] The New York _Times_, February 8, 1920. [299] The New York _Times_, March 2, 1920. [300] Ante, pp. 306-307. THE END INDEX