The sustained successes of the Constitutionalist arms in April and May did violence to the hopes of two aspirants for Mexico's presidency both of whom had secured backing in New York, including the advice and guidance of eminent counsel. One of these ambitious men was Felix Diaz, well known to fame and misfortune. The other was General Fernando Gonzales, the son of that president of Mexico who held the office from 1880 to 1884 by the permission of Porfirio Diaz.

The Felix Diaz enterprise need not be considered at length, although $100,000 was wasted upon it by men who should have known better. But the scheme of General Gonzales, formerly governor of the State of Mexico, was more formidable. Early in April Gonzales left New York for Mexico city with a proposal to lay before Huerta which involved the payment of three million dollars to the dictator and certain of his generals in consideration of the appointment of Gonzales to a place in the cabinet from which he would succeed to the presidency. Huerta's resignation was to be handed in before the money in the form of drafts on Paris should be paid. Seated as provisional president, Gonzales was to announce an open election in which Carranza, Felix Diaz, and all and sundry aspiring to the position, should have a fair chance to win on their merits.

Gonzales reached Mexico's capital, laid his proposal before Huerta, and was not shot; at least he had escaped that fate as late as May 9, when a cablegram in code was received from him by his counsel in New York. The cablegram conveyed the intelligence that matters seemed to be progressing favorably and might be concluded without violence, but that if violence proved to be necessary, the arrangements for its successful application had been made. If the transaction should be consummated on a peaceful basis, General Huerta was to leave the country unostenta

tiously via Puerto Mexico, taking passage in a vessel carrying the French flag.

Some thirty millions was to be supplied by loan to Mexico's treasury to start the Gonzales government. The three millions of cash had been provided for by negotiations of a large block of an old issue of bonds similar in appearance to those which Gustavo Madero had endeavored unsuccessfully to negotiate on a five-for-one basis in 1910, but of a better quality. These bonds to the amount of $15,000,000, face value, were to be passed over in return for the three millions in money, and were to be acknowledged by Gonzales when he should have achieved the presidency. The thirty millions to be loaned to Mexico was to be provided by men of large interests in that country in association with men of New York who hoped by this plan to stave off intervention by the United States with its shock to the security market. The market already was staggering under the heavy strain of the tariff and currency measures, and intervention in Mexico might break it down.

This story, fantastic as it seems, is sober fact, and demonstrates the lack of information and judgment among men, otherwise sane, regarding the actual trouble in Mexico and how to remedy it. Pancho Villa's victories and those of other Constitutionalist leaders which have been recorded made the Gonzales scheme impracticable from every point of view, especially the financial. Carranza loomed larger and larger as a presidential possibility, even taking into account the lack of adequate provision for Villa in any new government which might be set up.

Carranza's platform has been a rather startling one, but I do not find that it has seriously interfered with Washington's attitude toward him. Carranza is a Constitutionalist to the backbone and this is the foundation of his creed: every man who has voluntarily aided Huerta must be shot.

To some minds this may seem objectionable, but if relegated to the realms of purely academic discussion, by the operation of sufficient restraints, it might not matter.

Be Carranza's merits what they may, he was fortunate in having a good laywer which is often better than a good cause. The Constitutionalists were ably served in this respect at Washington, having a lawyer more successful than Mr. S. G. Hopkins, who had acted for the Maderos. The new attorney, Mr. C. A. Douglas, smoothed the way of the latterday revolutionalists of Mexico over many difficult places.

But the elevation of Carranza or any other man of the Constitutionalist party to the presidential chair will be no more than a beginning of the Mexican task. The pressing and vital problem is the finances of the government and of the railways. Few realize the harm that Huerta has done in nullifying the solemn pledge of Mexico's customs receipts to bankers as security for loans. It is hard to see how the great sums needed can be borrowed in Europe or America unless arrangements are made to place such pledges beyond the possibility of violation. This will demand a collector at every port to act as trustee for the bankers. The trustee must be powerful enough to enforce the rules. The United States can permit no other nation to undertake this business.

F

CHAPTER XXI

OR many months the Mexican policy of President
Wilson had been the theme of jests, or of serious

discussion which was even more amusing. It had been treated by the world as a peculiarly difficult and entertaining riddle; it had been supposed to hide mysterious and menacing international relations; it had been scoffed at as the mask put on to hide mere indecision. There is a sense, however, in which editorial comment in the United States, with few exceptions, had been constantly favorable. The dread of war, of trouble and expense, of injurious effect on business was constantly in evidence, and as Mr. Wilson's policy seemed to be safe, it may be said to have been praised in all these utterances.

Before he took his seat-in the days of the overthrow and murder of Madero-leading articles in thousands of papers began with statements of the Mexican situation which read like the most earnest arguments for intervention, but almost invariably there was a paragraph or two at the end which deprecated any action on the part of the United States tending toward invasion of Mexico or costly interference with her lamentable condition.

When the developments recorded in the preceding chapter had disclosed the relations of the Washington administration with the Constitutionalists, and had caused the President to use the armed forces of the United States against Huerta, the tone of criticism speedily became adverse and the President was censured for too much energy and haste by the same pens that had mildly ridiculed him for endur

ance of the antics of an intolerably bad neighbor. It seemed that the true inwardness of Mr. Wilson's Mexican policy was not understood, even so late; that it was not seen to have been a perfectly simple device to meet a very obvious requirement of his situation.

There is no doubt that in the latter part of February, 1913, the Mexican question presented itself to the President-elect in the form of a riddle which, as a public man and as an earnest, intelligent and humane individual, he would have been very glad to answer. But the situation in which he conceived himself to stand with reference to his interests and his highest duty seemed to demand that he should ask not, "How shall I solve that problem?" but rather, "How long will it wait unsolved?"

The public which he had been chosen to serve was excited by the ten days' bombardment in the Mexican capital (a performance not detected as a farce) and by the subsequent murders, and the peril to American lives and property; but as to what should be done, the public had no conviction. The tone of the press was decidedly against warlike measures. There was no clearness anywhere as to their justification, as to the cost and difficulties that would have to be met, or as to the essential truth that intervention in some form was inevitable, the only real question being, shall the thing be done now or later? Above all there was no sentiment against delay as a policy in itself, harsh and bloody.

The absurdity of private comment in high places at that time is beyond belief to-day. It was almost openly said in Washington by influential men that the overthrow of Madero was fortunate for Mexico, that his death though regrettable would make for peace, and that Huerta was the strong man needed to bring back the days of Diaz. These views are of no importance except as indicating the prev