read a message to the Congress in which he asked the repeal of the provision of the act that made the exemption.1 (Statement No. 15.) In doing so he laid emphasis on the fact that opinion outside of the United States was united in holding that the exemption was contrary to the treaty rights of Great Britain.2 The President's belief was thus expressed, "we are too big, too powerful, too self-respecting a Nation to interpret with too strained or refined a reading the words of our own promises just because we have power enough to give us leave to read them as we please.'

I

He closed his address with an appeal that caused great speculation and endless explanation. "I ask this of you in support of the foreign policy of the administration. shall not know how to deal with other matters of even greater delicacy and nearer consequence if you do not grant it to me in ungrudging measure." This was widely interpreted to indicate pressure from Great Britain with regard to Mexico. The President denied this in a subsequent talk with the newspaper men. In answer to questioning he stated that there was no particular significance to be attached to the words "nearer consequence." He regarded it as essential, however, that confidence be strengthened in the pledged word of the United States, if the policy of conciliation and co-operation, in which the

1 The proposed repeal applied to the clause that provided, "No tolls shall be levied upon vessels engaged in coastwise trade of the United States." United States Statutes at Large, XXXVII, 562.

2 For compilation of foreign press comment see Literary Digest, XLV, 362-3.

administration had been interested from the beginning, was to make headway in Latin America.1 Before Congress had indicated decisively its reaction to this proposal all attention was taken by startling events in Mexico.

MEXICO

Time had seemed to work no improvement there. As the spring approached the President insisted, in the face of an increasing storm of criticism, that the United States could afford to wait for the desired outcome.2 Haste upon the part of the United States could not but lead to bloodshed. Caution and patience might make it unnecessary.

However, on the third of April the personal representative of the President left Vera Cruz for the United States, serving by this departure to emphasize the failure of his mission, undertaken in August of 1913.3 Whether the President was at this time contemplating a new departure in dealing with the situation in Mexico cannot now be determined. Nor is it important. For events at this

1 World's Work, XXVIII, 490-491.

2 A compilation of adverse press comment from Europe and Latin America as well as the United States may be found in North American Review, CXCIX, 481 (April, 1914).

3 Simultaneously another Latin American problem was before the administration. On April 8, 1914, a treaty between the United States and Colombia was signed at Bogota. This had been anticipated by President Restrepo of Colombia. See Times (London), September 30, 1913. In a letter to the New York Times, published July 20, 1913, Ex-minister J. T. DuBois had stated that his mission had been handicapped because Colombia desired to await the action of the new administration at Washington.

point forced him to abandon, for the time being, the pursuance of his policy.

On April 9, 1914, a United States paymaster and a /boat's crew of nine were arrested at Tampico by an officer of the army of General Huerta. By the order of a superior officer they were released immediately and the American commander was tendered an apology, which was later supplemented by an expression of regret from Huerta. Rear-Admiral H. T. Mayo, in command of the fleet, did not regard these as meeting the requirements of the situation and demanded a formal apology, assurance that the officer would be severely punished, and finally that a salute of twenty-one guns be given the United States flag, the flag to be raised publicly by the saluting party. All this was to be done within twenty-four hours.

The President supported these demands, although the time limit was extended, inasmuch as the issue was now widened to include the personal responsibility of Huerta. In replying the representative of Huerta urged the existence of extenuating circumstances, and stressed the immediate release and apology. Upon the American refusal to consider this, Huerta agreed to the original demand, with qualifications, however, which the United States would not accept.

Mr. Lind arrived in Washington on the thirteenth, and the following day had conference with the President and Secretary Bryan. On the same day Nelson O'Shaughnessy, the American chargé at Mexico City, was informed of the final refusal of Huerta to submit to

what he termed a degradation of the sovereignty of Mexico. The President ordered the North Atlantic fleet to the east coast of Mexico, and on the fifteenth a similar movement of a Pacific fleet to the west coast. He explained in a conference with the committees of Congress that it was his intention to seize the ports of Tampico and Vera Cruz on the east coast and some of the ports on the west coast as well, and to establish by such means a pacific blockade of Mexico. Thus indicating a determination to force acquiescence, President Wilson on the eighteenth sent to General Huerta an ultimatum. Huerta refused to accede and it became known that the President would present the matter before Congress.

In a talk to the newspaper men at Washington, apparently after his order of the fourteenth but before he appeared before Congress, Wilson stated that neither the seizure of custom houses nor the giving of passports need lead to war, and that the purpose of the naval operations in Mexican waters was not, as some seemed to think, the 66 elimination of Huerta." He was careful to dissociate the act to enforce respect for the United States from his acts that had as their aim the establishment of a stable government in Mexico. Moreover, the country was talking little but war, while the President talked of display of force. The purpose of the Président was "to compel

1 The White House issued a statement upon April 15, 1914, in which it was pointed out that the United States had been singled out for attention by forces of Huerta and that the Tampico incident was one of a series. New York Times, April 16, 1914.

the recognition of the dignity of the United States." 1 Further emphasis of this appeared when the President addressed Congress on the twentieth. (Statement No. 16.) He was aware that the Tampico incident taken by itself might be considered insufficient ground for such drastic measures, but "unfortunately, it was not an isolated case. A series of incidents have recently occurred," he said, "which can not but create the impression that the representatives of General Huerta were willing to go out of their way to show disregard for the dignity and rights of this Government and felt perfectly safe in doing what they pleased, making free to show in many ways their irritation and contempt." The President in justifying his demand upon Huerta stated as his opinion that only a public salute and apology would impress the whole Mexican population with the importance of the incident.

War was not his plan. Indeed he hoped by the course he was about to pursue to avoid that very outcome. If the situation were dealt with "promptly, firmly, and wisely "it "need have none of the grave implications of interference." He asked the approval of Congress to use the armed forces of the United States in such ways and to such an extent as might be necessary to obtain from Huerta and his adherents the fullest recognition of the rights and dignity of the United States. This power the Congress voted two days later, following the President's

1 World's Work, XXVIII, 490. See also, article by Samuel Blythe, "Mexico: The Record of a Conversation with President Wilson," published in Saturday Evening Post, May 23, 1914, and reprinted in Congressional Record, LI, 9095.