Americans In Mexico.

New York Times 100 years ago today, June 22, 1913:
    An American citizen who for many years has been actively and conspicuously engaged in business in Mexico replied forcibly, in a letter printed on this page of The Times yesterday, to recent remarks of Secretary Bryan and Senator Bacon, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The argument of Mr. Paul Hudson is that the United States Government should recognize the provisional Mexican Government of Gen. Huerta and should then take prompt action for the compensation of Americans in Mexico whose property has been destroyed by revolutionists and exact indemnity for the lives of nearly 100 Americans which have been sacrificed.
    There are two sides of every question. President Wilson's refusal to recognize the Provisional Government is based firmly on precedent. Provisional Governments do not commonly ask for formal recognition. The President regards Gen. Huerta's claim to the office of President as a dubious claim, and he receives dispatches daily which seem to indicate the growth of the so-called Constitutional uprising against Huerta's usurpation of authority. In the circumstances, it is impossible to criticise harshly Mr. Wilson's course. He has inherited great perplexities in regard to Mexico. He feels that his refusal to recognize Huerta is in the interest of humanity and in accord with the policies which should govern a republic.
    On the other hand, his Secretary of State has unquestionably treated in a high-handed and injudicious way a committee of the representatives of American investors in Mexican properties, while Senator Bacon has declared that he cannot understand why Americans who invest money in revolutionary countries should be protected by their Government. The American investors whom Mr. Hudson so fitly represents went to Mexico in the administration of Porfirio Diaz. Under his rule Mexico thrived for thirty years. Foreign capital was induced to invest in Mexican enterprises. Protection was guaranteed, and with a few trivial exceptions, due to the historic inefficiency (to use no stronger word) of Mexican courts it was accorded. Our national trade with Mexico was trebled. The amount of honest American investments in Mexico at the time of the downfall of the Diaz Government was $800,000,000.
    To be sure, American rascals have meddled too much with Mexican affairs. We have had one diplomatic representative there, preceding Ambassador Wilson, who laid himself open to charges of sharp practice. The good name of Americans has suffered through such persons, and through a few greedy Americans who have helped to foment revolutions for the sake of getting concessions. But if the hot-blooded Mexican people sometimes fail to discriminate between such Americans and the thousands of decent ones, there is no reason why our State Department should lack discrimination. That many Americans in Mexico have needed assistance is proved by the fact that the American Red Cross has already expended $25,000 out of its own funds, to rescue and assist our fellow-citizens in the sister republic. The intentions of our State Department may be good, but its policy in regard to Mexico is bewildering.