File No. 710.11/371

The Consul General at Guayaquil ( Goding ) to the Secretary of State

Sir: I have the honor to enclose a translation of an editorial which appeared in El Telegrafo of Guayaquil, in its issue of June 13, 1918.

[Page 582]

This outspoken article, while well received to-day, would have caused the death of the editor had it appeared a few years ago in Ecuador, clearly showing the great change in sentiment by the Ecuadorans toward the United States and its people.

That the changed feelings occurred during my incumbency at this post is a source of great satisfaction to me; and I feel justified in assuming that at least a part of it is due to the efforts made at this office.

I have [etc.]

Frederic W. Goding
[Enclosure—Translation]

Editorial from “El Telegrafo” Guayaquil, Ecuador, June 13, 1918

AMERICA FOR THE AMERICANS

One of the results of the World’s War is going to be the commendation of the Monroe Doctrine; America for the Americans; for justified selfishness and in defense of the people of the new continent.

Yet the most beneficent doctrines of this diplomacy are in disfavor; it is indispensable to protect the union, because no other method is going to save the weaker nations from the outrages of the stronger ones.

In South America, where her vast riches and her enormous extensions of fertile lands must be an ample reward that compensates the privations undertaken, the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine should be in force as a protector so as to block in time the aspirations of the conqueror, who would desire to chain these smaller nations into his larger political unit.

America for the Americans. We should proclaim it—we should publish it—we should untiringly herald such a doctrine.

And the nations of South America will give a worthy example of prudence and sagacity by attaching themselves to the Americans of the other continent, uniting themselves to them, binding themselves in a loyal fraternity to form a solid unit, invulnerable by the solidity of their brotherhood, without stopping to regard the jingoism of the so-called Yankee peril.

Candidly we do not believe that such a danger exists. United States of America maintains commercial relations on a large scale with Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Peru, among other nations, yet Peru, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil have not lost their self-government; not even is there the remotest idea that such a danger threatens them, and above all, it is incredible that such a danger should come from the Grand Nation of the North; but to the contrary we should note how much the banks, the commerce, the agriculture and the industries of these nations have benefited by the reciprocal trade relations.

In opposition to our assertion you might cite the cases of Mexico, Cuba, Philippines, Panama, Puerto Rico and Haiti, but these facts do not bring a loss of prestige to the Grand Republic, because one must know the conditions of prosperity, of ease, and even independence that these countries enjoy in order to judge if they have or have not received the benefit of the paternal protection in the propitious hours of their civilization, and from whence these advantages were obtained.

Furthermore, this is not the point in question, since as with Texas and California, Philippines and Haiti, Cuba and Panama, the United States had to take the attitude with which it is now reproached; and we must consider the various conditions that entered into the situation—conditions absolutely distinct from those that apply to the nations of South America.

The United States, in its international relations with the countries of the southern continent, can not be lured by other than sentiments of mutual commercial expansion; and we think in this respect that its greater inducement would be to see these nations prosperous, because that which concerns the Monroe Doctrine is to remotely remove the danger of a European invasion and conquest, and to promote a mutual increase of her industries and commerce. We believe that there is no doubt but that one of the best aspirations of the United States must be to convert South America into her best import and export market. This policy would favor one continent as much as the other.

Why doubt? Why fear?

These mere digressions also occurred to us, and surely they have no more repetition than that of the morbid patriotism of the political chauvinists, [Page 583] for the reason of the invitation made to the countries of the American Continent to celebrate the classic date of July 4, as a symbol of the union that ought to prevail among the free countries of America; perhaps it will serve as wholesome information to the ambitions which arise in Europe; but surely it will serve as a challenge to the pretensions of those who desire to compensate their losses in the easy fields of this marvellous continent.

It is well that the people should know that America is not a land of conquest; that here the union is eulogized as the only means to reject the attacks of the powers; that America will be, as at present, only for Americans in the purest and most virtuous of its acceptations.

Matters being thus, why not celebrate the Fourth of July? Why not adopt this date, which commemorates the independence of our eldest sister of the North, as a classic date of liberty, under shelter of the starred Hag and under authority of the rulers of the Republic at Washington? Even to-day let us renew constantly the oath of freedom and of self-sacrifice in order to preserve the inestimable pledge of liberty that the Fathers of the Fatherland bequeathed to us.

All for one, one for all.

This should be the motto that America should impose, thereby profiting by the peril that the European conflict brings with it.