landlord, by the ownership of a piece of land; he must be able to read and write, so that he may know what the needs of civilization are. This policy is that which I characterized as a policy of hope and hopefulness. It is founded on doubt and despair. It refuses to recognize the Mexican who can only be shot into keeping order.

"If we despair of these people, who is to be their friend? Are we Americans to see Mexico forever remain a land of a few rich and cultivated gentlemen, and 12,000,000 half-starved, ill-clothed, and illiterate peasants-men, women, and children-kept in slavery and subjection and ignorance, a people into whose lives comes nothing that raises them above the beasts of the field?

"The people of the United States cannot conceive of such conditions. Is it not time to try another policy than that of force alone, which has failed so miserably and wrought such woe? Is President Wilson to be criticized because he believes that it is not idealistic, not outside the range of reasonable hope, to think of America as the helpful friend of Mexico? Why may not Mexico be led to see that we are honest in our willingness to help and that we can do it?

"President Wilson has clearly seen the end that he desired from the first, and he has worked toward it against an opposition that was cunning and intensive, persistent and powerful. If he succeeds in giving a new birth of freedom to Mexico, he most surely will receive the verdict of mankind."

(3) MEMORANDUM ON THE RIGHT OF AMERICAN CITIZENS TO TRAVEL UPON ARMED MERCHANT SHIPS, TRANSMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 4, 1916

The question to be considered in the present memorandum is whether Americans intending to travel on armed belligerent merchant vessels should be warned by the United States that in doing so they travel at their own risk, and that the United States should so warn its citizens about to embark upon armed belligerent merchant vessels. This raises the question whether or not a neutral citizen and subject can avail himself of a belligerent armed vessel for the transport of his person or goods, the determination of which seems to depend upon the further and the fundamental question whether a belligerent merchant ship may, without violation of law, carry armament to defend itself against attack upon the high seas.

The conclusions to be sustained by this memorandum, and which it is believed are supported by the practice of nations, are that a neutral has the right to transport his person and property upon armed belligerent merchant ships; that the vessels so armed may defend themselves if attacked by the enemy; that, in so doing, they are within. their rights under the law of nations as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court of the United States; and that the neutral does. not partake of a belligerent character although he is on board the belligerent merchant vessel, nor does he sacrifice his neutral character nor the neutral quality of his goods, according to the law of nations as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, if the armed belligerent merchant vessel resists attack, unless the neutral actually took part in the hostilities committed under these circumstances by the armed belligerent merchant vessel upon which his person may happen to be.

The memorandum will also endeavor to show that, while the outbreak of war authorizes a belligerent to capture the private property of his enemy upon the high seas, the declaration of war does not operate as a confiscation of the property, but only authorizes the belligerent to use the force necessary to capture the property, and that, according to the law of nations, the formalities hitherto recognized must be complied with-namely, that a merchant vessel of the enemy before capture must be summoned to surrender, and that upon its surrender, whether after the use of force or an attempt to escape the