OCR Text |
Show H The Other Side of the Question. H There are not a few individuals and a great m many newspapers, some of national influence, that m are demanding the government of the United H States to interfere in the Mexican controversy, and H condemn President Taft for not taking some ac- H tion looking o an invasion of that country by the fl military of this country. fl The reasons advanced are that the lives of H Americans are being endangered and their pro- H perty destroyed. Regardless of the clamor, the H president and his cabinet steadfastly refuse to be H alarmed or to act hastily. And there is no-doubt H but that the officials at Washington are doing the H only right and proper thing for this country to do M unless conditions assume a more serious aspect H than anything that has developed tip to this time H keep out of the fracas. H The fact is quite clear that one country has H no right to interfere with the affairs of another H country simply because a few of its citizens and H their property therein are in danger as the result H of an organized warfare. When a subject of one H country leaves it and goes to another and takes up H his residence there and acquires property interests H there, he does so solely because he thinks he is M bettering. his condition, else he wouldn't leave his M own country. In effect, he says that he no longer H feels that his own country is the right place for M him; that another offers him better opportunities Hv is more to his liking. He' leaves his own home- H land to develop and build up another. And when H he takes up his new residence he believes its laws H its form of government, the liberties or the licen- H ces he enjoys are more staisfying to him and he H adopts them by implication at least as being bet-, " te'suitGd tois'jyray oflopking-at tjhings. ,y - H This being true why then should .the country H he has left be required to endanger the lives of H its loyal manhood, the accumulations of its .loyal H citizenship simply because such an one has 'later H discovered ..that something is not to his liking in H the land of his adoption. The property he has H there was accumulated thereit is a part of the H mass of -wealth of the country in which he is resid- H ing. Not being subject to the control of or hav- H ing been furnished by the country of his nativity, H what right has such country to interfere? None H unless it be the right of might. No justification H can be be found for such interference. H Were the individual merely a guest of that H country visiting for a brief time with no intention H to reside or remain permanently for any consider- H able time the matter would appear in an alto- B gether different aspect. A guest is entitled to the H highest consideration and care by his host and a H citizen of one country traveling or visiting in H ' another should be safely protected from .violence H oi any kind and unless so protected the country H of; which he is a subject is wholly justified in H taking such. measures as will .insure such pro- H tection. H hi But such can not be true of the person who H cares not a "tinkers darn" for his "own" country H unless he be in serious trouble or danger. |