remains therefore, but one thing that is worthy of discussion in this connection, and that is whether or not the raids at the border would justify intervention by the United States into the affairs of Mexico. It must be admitted everywhere that these raids are organized for the purpose of destroying the peace and friendship between the governments of Mexico and the United States and I have already quoted the very words in which President Wilson has warned publicly the nation against that fact, in his statement a few weeks after the raid of Columbus.

If this is true, this situation ought to bring the two countries closer together in a firmer and warmer friendship rather than make them enemies; and it should emphasize and enforce the necessity of coöperation between the two governments in bringing about the coöperative patrolling or policing of their respective borders, by the soldiers of the two countries on their respective sides. In other words, the cause of the friction and the menace, to wit, the raids, should be prevented in the future by the cooperation suggested instead of by sending into Mexico an army, which moves secretly and without the knowledge of the Mexican authorities, for in the better case the Mexican government cannot see its way to coöperate.

There would be no justice in the United States intervening in the affairs of Mexico simply to prevent raids when the surest and most feasible way to prevent them is to devise means for their prevention by a frank understanding between the two governments. And this frank understanding can not exist so long as you keep in Mexico an army which is only calculated to disturb the country and to prevent the pacification of it.

But there are precedents in American diplomacy which make this point very strong. The New York Evening Post of June 24 prints an interview given by ex-Governor Baldwin regarding the American expedition in Mexico. Governor Baldwin said: "There is no doubt as to the rules of international law in regard to this. Nothing is better settled than that no nation has the right to send armed soldiers into the territory of another nation or to keep

Then

them there without first getting its permission.' Mr. Baldwin pointed out the difficulty the United States had with England in 1837, when some Americans fomented an insurrection in Canada from an island near the Canadian shore, with the aid of an American vessel, which brought over supplies and men from the port of Schlosser in New York. The Canadian officers sent over an expedition by night and after capturing the boat sent it over Niagara Falls, one American being killed in the attack. The President of the United States sent a message to Congress, saying that an atonement was "due for the public wrong done to the United States for this invasion of her territory" and added:

To recognize it as an admissible practice that each Government, in its turn, upon any sudden and unauthorized outbreak, on a frontier, the extent of which renders it impossible for either to have an efficient force on every mile of it, and which outbreak therefore neither may be able to suppress in a day, may take vengeance in its own hand without even a remonstrance and in the absence of any pressing or overruling necessity, may invade the territory of the other, would inevitably lead to results equally to be deplored by both.

Afterwards when Mr. Daniel Webster became Secretary of State, while this affair was unsettled, he wrote to the British minister at Washington that the only justification alleged was the right of self-defense but that that right did not justify the invasion of the United States soil unless the British Government could show that

the necessity for it was instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation, and even if those were the conditions the act justified by the necessity of self-defence must be limited by that necessity and kept clearly within it.

Mr. Baldwin also states that correspondence followed with Lord Ashburton in which the British and American governments agreed on these principles: that

respect for the inviolable character of the territory of independent nations is the most essential foundation of civilization; that a strong overpowering necessity may arise when this great principle may and must be suspended, but that it must be so for the shortest possible period during the continuance of an admitted over

ruling necessity and strictly confined within the narrowest limits imposed by that necessity.

After that Mr. Baldwin states that the main question now is whether or not the United States troops have outstayed their time in Mexico, even if they went in with permission of the Mexican government. Now let us consider whether the American expedition has been in accordance with this principle set forth by the government of the United States. After the raid of Columbus the American government sent an expedition into Mexico without even advising the Mexican government. When the Mexican government knew of the expedition, it requested the United States to come to an agreement by which both governments might coöperate in sending troops into each other's country for the pursuit of bandits. The United States admitted that in principle an agreement should be made but at the same time declined to consider that present expedition in this agreement and even in the case of further expeditions, declined to subscribe to any condition regarding the zone of its operations, the time of its stay, the arms to be taken into Mexico, and the number of men to form the expeditions. Under this condition it was impossible for the Mexican government to come to an agreement, so Mexico had recourse to the conference between Generals Scott and Obregon; but General Scott was unable to agree to a limitation of the stay of the troops or to accept any plans for coöperation, on the contrary, he wanted the American forces to operate independently. Mr. Carranza, therefore, could not approve of that agreement, and further negotiations were suspended.

Contrary to expectations in this country, the original expedition sent from Columbus, met with coöperation from the Mexican military authorities. General Pershing definitely reported that he had been furnished with scouts. This was stated by Secretary Baker in his interviews with the New York Times of March 16, 22 and 26, and the New York Sun of March 22. But soon afterward, the expedition was increased into an army 14,000 strong, with field artillery, infantry and other war machinery that could

only be intended to be used against the regular army of Mexico. The movements of the American army were kept secret not only from the Mexican authorities but even from the American public. Even newspaper correspondents to this day date their messages "somewhere at the front." At the same time arms and ammunitions purchased by the Mexican government were embargoed by the federal authorities under pretext of representations made by peace societies-an excuse which was not admissible in the face of the large shipments of munitions sent to Europe every day.

Nothing short of contemplating further trouble with Mexico could explain the embargo put on ammunition for Carranza at the same time he was urged to use his munitions in the extermination of bandits. Moreover, as the continuous interference of the Unised States government has fostered disturbances in Mexico for quite a time, this interference was becoming more material day by day. Mr. Carranza felt himself compelled to request your government to define its intentions towards Mexico. That is the note which has been so contemptuously spoken of by the antagonistic press and which seems to have angered the administration. In the drastic reply of the state department, your government has gone at length into the outrages and damages suffered by American citizens during the revolution and with the recent raids on the frontier, but gives no concrete or direct answer to the main inquiry of the Carranza note: namely, the further intentions of the United States. At the same time it may be observed that this reply contradicts many statements given to the press by members of the President's cabinet.

Now returning to the stay of the United States troops in Mexico, I will call your attention again to the fact that it is precisely those troops that are disturbing the peace in Mexico. The mere presence of a foreign army weakens the executive in any nation, and much more if that is combined with frequent foreign threats. That army is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the government and is calculated to encourage sedition and outbreaks sooner or

later, so that Mr. Carranza is confronted with the dilemma of foreign complications or renewed civil strife. Is that the way to aid in the restoration of peace in Mexico and the rehabilitation of a de-facto government? Is that consistent with the friendship and good will so frequently proclaimed by President Wilson?

As a matter of fact only three raids have taken place including Columbus. The other two were Glenn Springs and San Benito. The raid of Columbus was a matter of common talk along the border nearly two weeks before it took place and even Mexican authorities warned Colonel Slocum who commanded the garrison of that town that Villa was marching against him. Colonel Slocum acknowledged the advice of the Mexican General Gavira but failed to prepare himself against the attack and was taken by surprise. Many Americans in Columbus were willing to send a protest against Colonel Slocum for that negligence.

The raid on Glenn Springs was made possible by the small garrison which was kept there, only nine men-an invitation to attack.

The raid on San Benito was an affair of outposts and neither civilians nor the military had casualties because due vigilance was exercised by Colonel Parker.

Nobody can explain how troops stationed within the state of Chihuahua can protect the American border at points more than a hundred and fifty miles distant. The 14,000 men of the Pershing column withdrawn from Central Chihuahua and properly disposed along the American border in the states of New Mexico and Texas would end every danger of border raids of any sort from Mexican territory into the United States. In other words, Mr. Wilson's punitive expedition has been at the expense of Texas and New Mexico rather than to their advantage and protection.

And effective protection can be made by withdrawing those troops from Mexico and extending them along the border; the withdrawal would at the same time relieve Mexico from every cause of uneasiness, restore the confidence of the Mexican people, first in their own govern