William Jennings Bryan to Woodrow Wilson

From your speeches at Swarthmore and Mobile, I take it that you are revolving in your mind the statement which you are soon to make of your Mexican policy. I take the liberty, therefore, of presenting for you consideration, the conclusions that have been running through my mind. I was in doubt as to how our country's position could be so stated as to link the new position with the earlier statements of the Monroe doctrine, and did not see daylight until the publication of that statement then attributed to Huerta, but now believed to be entirely false.
The first announcement of the Monroe doctrine was intended to protect the republics of America from the political power of European nations — to protect them in their right to work out their own destiny along the lines of self–government. The next application of that doctrine was made by Cleveland when this Government insisted that European governments should submit their controversies with American republics to arbitration, even in the matter of boundary lines.
A new necessity for the application of the principle has arisen, and the application is entirely in keeping with the spirit of the doctrine and carries out the real purpose of that doctrine. The right of American republics to work out their own destiny along lines consistent with popular government, is just as much menaced today by foreign financial interests as it was a century ago by the political aspirations of foreign governments. If the people of an American republic are left free to attend to their own affairs, no despot can long keep them in subjection; but when a local despot is held in authority by powerful financial interests, and is furnished money for the employment of the soldiers, the people are as helpless as if a foreign army had landed on their shores. This, we have reason to believe, is the situation in Mexico, and I cannot see that our obligation is any less now than it was then. We must protect the people of these republics in their right to attend to their own business, free from external coercion, no matter what form that external coercion may take.
Your utterance in regard to conquest was timely. We must be relieved of suspicion as to our motives. We must be bound in advance not to turn to our own advantage any power we employ. It will be impossible for us to win the confidence of the people of Latin American, unless they know that we do not seek their territory or ourselves desire to exercise political authority over them. If we have occasion to go into any country, it must be as we went into Cuba, at the invitation of the Government, or with assurances that will leave no doubt as to the temporary character of our intervention. Our only object must be to secure to the people an opportunity to vote, that they may themselves select their rulers and establish their government.
It has occurred to me that this might be an opportune time XXXX to outline the policy which I suggested a few months ago in connection with Nicaragua, namely, the loaning of our credit to the Latin American states. They have to borrow money, and it is the money borrowed by those Governments that has put them under obligations to foreign financiers, We cannot deny them the right to borrow money, and we cannot overlook the sense of gratitude and the feeling of obligation that come with a loan. If our country, openly claiming a paramount influence in the Western Hemisphere, will go to the rescue of these countries and enable them to secure the money they need for education, sanitation and internal development, there will be no excuse for their putting themselves under obligations to financiers in other lands. I believe it is perfectly safe and will make absolutely sure our domination of the situation.
If, for instance, in the stating of your policy, you propose, with the approval of Congress, that the Government lend its credit, issuing its own bonds at three per cent., and taking the bonds of other countries at four XXX four and one–half per cent., the difference to be put in a sinking fund and used for the retirement of the bonds, we will offer what no one else is in a position to offer, and show that our friendship is practical and sufficient, as well as disinterested.
The loan proposition is not, of course, a necessary part of the policy you are preparing to announce, but I submit that it would be a valuable addition to it, because it would not only prove our real friendship and the depth of our interest, but it would offer to those countries an escape from the obligations which have brought them into servitude to European money lenders.
I believe that the country would respond instantly and with unanimity to the plan. The purposes, namely, (1) the desire to protect these countries from outside interference — whatever the character of that interference — is a practically unanimous desire. Second, the means of furnishing this protection will depend upon the conditions which we have to meet. It may be that the withdrawal of the encouragement given to Huerta by foreign governments may enable the Constitutionalists, with such encouragement as we can give them, to compel the holding of a real election. Third, in case of intervention, it should be temporary in its character and only for the purpose of aiding to secure an election, with the promise that we will respect the integrity of the Republic, and, Fourth, that we stand ready to assist in the maintenance and development of constitutional government by lending our credit to the lawful authorities; thus enabling them to secure, at a low rate, the money needed for their proper development.
I shall be at your command tomorrow and hold myself in readiness to call at the White House upon a moment's notice, but I thought best to put these suggestions in writing and have them ready for you on your return.