CHAPTER II

PRINCIPLES IN PRACTICE

Pre-eminent Importance of the Mexican Question — Development of the Policy of the Administration President Wilson's Treatment of the Panama Tolls Controversy - Inviolability of Treaties Crisis in the Relations with Huerta - Mediation by the "A. B. C." Powers - Triumph of the President's Policies.

MEXICO demanded of the administration increasing attention. In the midst of what the President some three years later called "this perplexing business," it was repeatedly asserted, and the statement met with general acceptance, that however much the American people rejoiced in the fact that the administration had not intervened in Mexico, a great portion did not understand the policy of the President and were frequently baffled by the changes in that policy. In its development the policy of the administration by the opening of 1914 had passed through two stages. In the first the President had merely refused to recognize the government of Huerta, in the second, signalized by the mission of Lind, he had tendered the good offices of the United States in an effort to bring the warring factions together. In spite of the rejection by Huerta of this proffered aid, the President's personal representative had remained in Mexico and

the President had maintained an attitude of "watchful waiting."

He felt that peace in America was not assured until a constitutional government had been established in Mexico, and he held that an elimination of those who exercised arbitrary and illegal power must necessarily precede the formation of a permanent concert of power for the Americas. The United States was particularly on trial in this matter partly because of its course toward Mexico in earlier years and partly because its predominant size in the Americas naturally engendered the suspicion of possible aggression. Consequently the President wished to emphasize the peculiar burden of responsibility resting upon the United States.

1

In his message to Congress in December of 1913 he said, "We are the friends of constitutional government in America; we are more than its friends, we are its champions; because in no other way can our neighbors to whom we would wish in every way to make proof of our friendship, work out their own development in peace and liberty." His meaning here was subject to two possible interpretations. Championship might imply merely continued refusal to recognize Huerta or it might mean adoption of measures of some sort to hasten the downfall of any who exercised arbitrary authority. Late in January of 1914 the President took a step that marked entrance upon the third stage in the development of his

1 In this message greater powers in self-government were asked for Porto Rico and Hawaii and ultimate independence for the Philippines was stressed.

policy. He made known to the members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that he intended to raise the embargo on the shipment of arms into Mexico.1

66

In his explanation of February 3, 1914, there is a frank statement of the reasons for the use of this weapon against Huerta. (Statement No. 14.) This was championship of those who were waging war for a constitutional government. Said the President: The executive order under which the exportation of arms and ammunition into Mexico is forbidden was a departure from the accepted practices of neutrality—a deliberate departure from those practices under a well-considered joint resolution of Congress, determined in circumstances which have now ceased to exist.2 It was intended to discourage incipient revolts against the regularly constituted authorities of Mexico. Since that order was issued the circumstances of the case have undergone a radical change. There is now no Constitutional Government in Mexico; and the existence of this order hinders and delays the very thing that the Government of the United States is now insisting upon, namely, that Mexico shall be left free to settle her own affairs and as soon as possible put them on a constitutional footing by her own force and counsel." Critics of the President pointed out that this order would result in arming those whom the

1 On January 2, 1914, the President had conferred with John Lind, his personal representative in Mexico.

2 The order of Taft of March 14, 1912, had forbidden all export except to the government of Madero. The order of Wilson in 1913 had made no exception.

United States must eventually fight when it intervened, but unlike these critics the President had no intention, then or at a later time, of intervening.1

But the new determination of the President did seem to actually project the United States into Mexico's domestic troubles.2 Moreover, it divided the responsibility for what happened in Mexico between the Huertistas and the Constitutionalist faction; though General Carranza, the leader of that party, refused to assume this burden. There were indications of some disposition on the part of the world at large to hold the United States itself in some measure responsible for acts of violence directed at foreigners in Mexico. In February Great Britain requested that the Washington government investigate the death of a British subject, whose killing, it was charged, had been at the hands of troops of the party of Carranza. The United States accepted the responsibility, but on account of strained relations with Carranza its efforts were not an unqualified success.

Mr. Wilson felt called upon to discuss the rumour of European interference on March 2, 1914, and to deny that any pressure had been brought to bear upon the

1 There was widespread demand for change in policy toward Mexico in the late winter. See particularly W. M. Shuster, "The Mexican Menace," Century Magazine, LXXXVII, 593 (February, 1914,) and G. Harvey, "We Appeal to the President," North American Review, CXCIX, 481 (April, 1914).

2 Comment at this time was aroused by two other acts of the administration. Late in January United States marines were landed in Haiti to aid in maintenance of order. On February 12, 1914, formal recognition was given a government recently established in Peru.

United States government by other governments.1 That this denial may have been accompanied by a mental reservation is to be inferred from an occurrence on the following day in the British House of Commons, when Sir Edward Grey announced that if the British government did not obtain satisfaction from the Constitutionalists through the good offices of the United States it reserved the right to obtain reparation by other means when the circumstances should permit.

PANAMA TOLLS

In the meantime other matters were causing concern to the administration. As has been pointed out above, controversies were pending with several governments, and in his conference with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in January the President took the occasion to point out the gravity of the international situation.

Of the questions before him the President decided first of all to take up the contention of Great Britain that the exemption of American coastwise ships from the payment of tolls at Panama was a violation of the treaty of 1901 between the United States and Great Britain. The Democratic platform of 1912 had favoured this exemption and there were Democratic majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding these facts the President on March 5, 1914,

1 From a stenographic report of a talk of the President on March 2, 1914. Published in World's Work, XXVIII, 485-7.