Msxican Dandits Raise Nice Question of Ethics iff ASIIINJT(X.I'r'si.lc!:l Wilson's cabinet split wide open on ilie following TJ ipicstion: Was 'it il :i in "Mallaek Justified in healing tin' -Mexican bamliis oul of $;,"iio ol' the ransom for I ho two iirmv a via I ors '! With the professors LhDit.dti'.fP' IT WA, ITWfiSflT! of ethics wlio supervised military morals mor-als during Ihe war demobilized, there have been no authorities to turn to for a ruling, mid it look as if PresiJ mt Wilson, who inslnicled the senate commitiee on the difference between a moral and a legal obligation, would lie called u inn to decide this moral issue for the cabinet. One group of cabinet members condemns con-demns the cheating of the bandits :s! dishonorable, declaring it reprehensible to break a nromise made even to n criminal. Another group conlend; that the breaking of a promise made under duress is justifiable. Then there is a utilitarian school of thought maintaining that the bargain oiigld lo have been carried out implicitly because the impairment of our reputation with the bandits for gxil faith may embarrass future negotiations to ransom our citizens. The Mexican border's contribution to the controversy was that General I'ickmaii uas seeking ways and niiuis to pay the remainder of the ransom to he bandits. The sportsman, who has a nice sense of honor in disputed questions of this kind, will unhesitatingly say that General Dickman is right. The average American will probably say: "Pay the bandits the money and then shoot "em."