German legal interpretation thereof, Captain Fryatt was acting well within his rights in attempting to ram a hostile submarine. Had he been armed he might have been successful. Even then he would have been a prisoner of war, for the Germans would have been estopped, under their own regulations, from treating him otherwise. As it was, he used the only arm available-his ship. And because he used his ship and not a gun he was tried, convicted, and executed by a court of German naval officers as a 66 franc-tireur of the sea." L Our Relations with Mexico ITTLE actual progress toward a settlement of the Mexican question has been made during the month, but the two Governments have exchanged friendly notes and come to a full agreement as to the next step to be taken. The various points at issue, notably Mexico's demand for the withdrawal of our troops and our demand that the border be safeguarded against murderous raids of Mexican outlaws, are to be submitted to a joint commission, consisting of three members from each nation. This plan was definitely proposed by General Carranza in his note of July 11, (presented by Señor Arredondo on July 12,) and was accepted by President Wilson with the suggestion that the powers of the commission be somewhat enlarged. This was answered promptly by General Carranza's appointment of Mexico's three Commissioners: Luis Cabrera, Minister of Finance in the Carranza Cabinet and former Confidential Agent in Washington for the Carranza Government. Alberto J. Pani, President of the Mexican National Railways. Ignacio Bonillas, Sub-Secretary of the Department of Communications. Some unavoidable delay has occurred in appointing the American members. Meanwhile General Pershing's force remains in Mexico, and the National Guard contingents from all the States continue in their encampments all along our side of the border, where they are receiving nilitary drill under regular army officers and becoming the nucleus of a well-prepared army of defense for future emergencies. The border raids have ceased, at least for the present. The diplomatic correspondence on the subject begins with the Mexican note of July 11, which harks back to the American note published in the August number of CURRENT HISTORY. It is addressed to Mr. Lansing and reads as follows: Mexico City, July 11, 1916. Mr. Secretary: I have had the honor to refer the note of your Excellency, dated the 7th inst., which was transmitted to our Confidential Agent, Eliseo Arredondo, and upon doing so I wish to mention that I have received instructions from the First Chief in charge of the executive power of the Union, suggesting that you convey to his Excellency, President Wilson, the idea of naming three Commissioners to represent each of our Governments to meet in some place of mutual designation, hold conferences and resolve at once the point regarding the definite withdrawal of the American forces now in Mexico, draft a protocol of agreement regarding the reciprocal crossing of forces and investigate the origin of the incursions taking place up to date, so as to be able to ascertain responsibility and arrange definitely the pending difficulties or those that may arise between the two countries in the future, all this to be subject to the approval of both Governments. The purpose of the Mexican Government is that such conferences shall be held in a spirit of the most frank cordiality and with an ardent desire to reach a satisfactory agreement and one honorable to both countries, with the understanding that if the United States Government accepts the idea hereby suggested this shall be the recommendation made to the Commissioners designated. The Mexican Government considers this the most efficacious medium of reaching a satisfactory solution and hopes the United States will state whether the suggestion is acceptable, in order that it may be immediately put in practice and that the Mexican Government may send the names of its delegates. Assure his Excellency of my highest C. AGUILAR. consideration. A cordial assent to the proposition was granted in the American reply, which was handed to Señor Arredondo, the Am bassador Designate of Mexico at Washington: Washington, July 28, 1916. Mr. Secretary: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your Excellency's note transmitted under date of July 12 by Lic. Eliseo Arredondo, your Government's Confidential Agent in Washington, informing me that your Excellency has received instructions from the Citizen First Chief of the Constitutionalist Army charged with the executive power of the Union to propose that each of our Governments name three commissioners, who shall hold conferences at some place to be mutually agreed upon and decide forthwith the question relating to the evacuation of the American forces now in Mexico, and to draw up and conclude a protocol or agreement regarding the reciprocal crossing of the frontier by the forces of both countries, also to determine the origin of the incursion to date, in order to fix the responsibility therefor and definitely to settle the difficulties now pending or those which may arise between the two countries on account of the same or a similar reason; all of which shall be subject to the approval of both Governments. In reply I have the honor to state that I have laid your Excellency's note before the President and have received his instructions to inform your Excellency that the Government of the United States is disposed to accept the proposal of the Mexican Government in the same spirit of frank cordiality in which it is made. This Government believes, and suggests, however, that the powers of the proposed commission should be enlarged so that, if happily a solution satisfactory to both Governments of the question set forth in your Excellency's communication may be reached, the commission may also consider such other matters the friendly arrangement of which would tend to improve the relations of the two countries; it being understood that such recommendations as the commission may make shall not be binding upon the respective Governments until formally accepted by them. Should this proposal be accepted by your Excellency's Government, I have the honor to state that this Government will proceed immediately to appoint its commissioners, and fix, after consultation with your Excellency's Government, the time and place and other details of the proposed conferences. Accept, Mr. Secretary, the assurances of my highest consideration. FRANK L. POLK, Acting Secretary of State. The response to this was handed to Mr. Polk by Señor Arredondo a week later, the text being as follows: Mexico City, Aug. 4, 1916. Mr. Secretary: In due reply to the courteous note of the Department of State, dated July 28, 1916, I have the honor to say to your Excellency that the First Chief of the Constitutionalist Army, in charge of the executive power of the Mexican Republic, congratulates himself upon the laudable efforts of the American Government to arrive at a solution of existing difficulties between the two countries, and, to that effect, considering it of the greatest importance that a prompt decision be reached of the points which have caused the existing differences between the United States and Mexico, referred to in the note of the Mexican Government dated July 4 last, has seen fit to appoint at once a commission of three persons, constituted by Licentiate Luis Cabrera, Engineer Ignacio Bonillas, and Engineer Alberto J. Pani, to whom instructions have been given to devote their attention preferably to the resolution of the points mentioned in the previous note of this department. Licentiate Eliseo Arredondo has been authorized to treat with the Department of State the matter of details relating to the place and date on which the Commissioners of the Mexican Government should meet the Commissioners of the United States in order to commence their labors. I reiterate to your Excellency the assurance of my highest consideration. C. AGUILAR. Secretary of Foreign Relations. At the present writing (Aug. 21) the American members of the commission have not yet been appointed, owing to the inability of two of those chosen by President Wilson to serve. The delay has nettled General Carranza, necessitating an informal explanation. An official decree issued on Aug. 17 by the Mexican Government threatens to add another point of difference between the two countries. It provides that henceforth all foreigners who intend to acquire lands, mines, water rights, oil wells, timber lands, or fisheries must make formal declaration that they renounce their treaty rights and will claim only the same privileges as Mexican citizens. In other words, they must renounce the right to demand protection of their Governments. Authorities on international law regard it as very unlikely that any Government will recognize such a decree. Collapse of the Home Rule Plan-Execution of Sir Roger Casement. H ENRY EDWARD DUKE, a barrister and Unionist member of Parliament for Exeter, was appointed the new Chief Secretary for Ireland on July 31, in succession to Augustine Birrell. Lord Wimborne, who resigned as Lord Lieutenant after the Dublin outbreak, but whose resignation had not been accepted, withdrew it a few days later, and thus the Dublin Castle rule for Ireland, which was to have been abolished by the substitution of an Irish Parliament with the six Ulster counties excluded, was formally set up again. This announcement was the signal for a fresh outburst of bitter protest from John Redmond, the Nationalist leader, and other Nationalist members. A declaration issued by the Nationalist Party in Parliament declared that its members considered themselves absolved from association with the Coalition Government, and free to oppose it independently in any circumstances. The debates in the House of Commons on the Irish question were marked by intense bitterness. The Government was freely charged with breach of faith in failing to present the Home Rule bill, and in setting up again the control of Irish affairs at Dublin Castle by a Unionist Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary. LLOYD GEORGE'S PLAN FAILS In the House on July 24, Mr. Lloyd George made a frank confession of his failure to reach a settlement. His words, which follow, are in answer to a bitter speech of criticism by John Redmond: There was a clear understanding between the parties that the Ulster counties should not be automatically included, and that that should be made absolutely clear on the face of the bill (the proposed Home Rule bill.) That is all the Government asked for, and that is the only thing they say at the present moment. The second point is the alteration in the form of the agreement with regard to the number of Irish members. Here I say at once the heads of the settlement have been departed from. The Irish members were to remain in undiminished numbers in this House until a permanent settlement had been' carried through and embodied in an Act of Parliament. Mr. Redmond asked me: Why have we departed from that? I will state quite frankly why. It is perfectly true that the suggested alteration was placed before Mr. Redmond after the statement of the Prime Minister. The position was this: The whole of my honorable friends who represent the Unionist Party found it to be quite impossible for them to vote for a proposal which would maintain the Irish members in undiminished numbers in the Imperial Parliament after a general election and after a Home Rule Government had been set up in Ireland. They informed us that if they supported the proposal there would not be a single supporter of it in their own party, and that even members of the Unionist Party who were prepared to agree to bringing Home Rule into operation immediately would object to that particular proposal. What, therefore, was the alternative proposal? The proposal was that until the dissolution the Irish members should remain in the Imperial Parliament in undiminished numbers; that, after the dissolution the provisions of the Home Rule act should come into operation, but that the Irish members should be summoned to the Imperial Parliament in undiminished numbers whenever the Imperial Parliament came to consider a permanent settlement. The objection raised by the Unionist members to the proposal was this: They said Home Rule for three-fourths of Ireland would have come into operation, and that after dissolution, if the Irish members were here in undiminished numbers, it might make the difference between, say, a Liberal and a Unionist Government. They considered that to be perfectly unfair from the point of view of the ideas which they represent, and they stated quite distinctly that it would be impossible for them to assent to it. Therefore, we were face to face with the fact that the agreement could not be put through without that modification. The Government are in a position to introduce a measure for bringing the Home Rule act into immediate operation for all the counties of Ireland except six. The powers of the Home Rule act in respect of that part of Ireland will be absolutely unimpaired except in regard to the Court of Appeal. Mr. Redmond says if there is any attempt to force the bill with these modifications upon Irish members they will resist it-that they will not merely resist these provisions, but they |