| OCR Text |
Show FIGHTING AGAINST HISTORY. It was inovitable that tho intorfcr-enco intorfcr-enco which President Wilson proposed in tho internal affairs of Mexico should bo rejected, as it was at first by President Presi-dent Huerta; for the proposal tbtc Prosident Wilson made in this respect is directly contrary to all tho traditions of American diplomacy, and contrary to the spirit of American relations with foreign powors, from tho time of Washington Wash-ington onward. President Wnshlngton in hiB Parowcll Address Bnid: "Tho groat rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations Is, in extending our oommercial relations, to have with them a3 little political connection as possible. So far as we havo already formed engagements, let them bo fulfilled ful-filled with perfect good faith. Hore let ub Btop. " JefferBon, also, declarod a doctrino which has boon standard in American foreign relations over since, when he naid: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Professor John Bassott Moore, who is supposed to be the adviser of the Stnte Department, but whoso advice apparently apparent-ly haB not boen followed in what we have proposed toward Mexico, is probably proba-bly our bost living diplomatic authority. authori-ty. He has beon employed impartially by recent administrations aa advisor, and often aa an official; and he Ib the author of tho most notable work on diplomacy di-plomacy that has over been producod in America. Tracing the trend of Amori-oan Amori-oan diplomacy from the first, Mr. j Moore Bays in hio Btandard work, "American Diplomacy Its Spirit and Achievements," as followst Among the rules of conduot prescribed for tho United States by tho Btatesmcn who formulated its foreign policy, none woa conceived to bo more fundamental or more distinctively American than that which forbade intervention in, the political polit-ical affairs of other countries .... warned by the spectacle of the great European struggles that had marked tho attempts of nations to control ono another's an-other's political destiny, tho statesmen of America, believing that thoy had a. different dif-ferent mission to perform, planted themselves them-selves upon tho principle of equality of nations as expounded by Grotlus and other masters of international law. This plnclplo was expressed with peculiar felicity and forco by Voitel. who declared de-clared that nations Inherited from na-turo na-turo "tho same obligations and rights;" that power or weakness could not in this respect produce any difference, and that a "small republic was "not less a sovereign state than tho moBt powerful kingdom," The name thought was tersely phrased by Chief Justlco Marshall, Mar-shall, in his celebrated affirmation; "No principle Is more universally acknowledged acknowl-edged than the perfect oquallty of nations. na-tions. 'Russia and Geneva havo equal rights." And as the Declaration of Independence In-dependence proclaimed life, liberty, and tho pursuit of happiness to bo "Inalienable "In-alienable rightB" of Individual men, so the founders of tho American Republic ascribed the samo rights to men in thoir aggregato political capacity as Independent Independ-ent nations. And Mr. Moore clinches this with the statement: "In a word, tho United State b maintained that the true test of a government's title to recognition is not tho theoretical legitimacy of its origin, but the fact of its oxistence as the apparent exponent of tho popular will." Thore- can be no doubt that tho ro-fusal ro-fusal of President Wilson to recognize the "ETuerta government has produced moro ill will against Americans among the Mexican people than anything that has occurred In the present generation. It is undoubtedly true, further, that it has had the most undesirable effect throughout the Latin-American republics of anything that has ever been done by an administration of tho United States, by creating and fostering tho opinion that tho United States desires lo extend its supervision and control over all of the countries or Contral and South America. For, disguise dis-guise it as we may undor protestations of friendship nnd amicable regard, there is no question but that tho ultimate ulti-mate effect of Prosident Wilson's treatment treat-ment of the JTuerta government has beeu, and must necessarily be, an assertion as-sertion of the right of this country to supervise Ihe establishment of governments govern-ments in Mexico, and porhapa in other Latin-American republics, nnd to determine deter-mine for ourselves and from our own standpoints whothor theso governments aro legal and proper 5r not. But this is, in effect, to declare our supervision over all theno countries; aud that is precisely what is resented by these Latin-American republics, and uiUBt continue con-tinue to bo resented as long as thoy mako any prolouso at being independent indepen-dent nations. It follows that rejection of our intervention, inter-vention, through diplomacy, in Mexico's internal politics, was inovitable in principle, prin-ciple, though later may possibly be forced, and that intervention never Bhould have been proposed, much les3 actually attempted. |
