Mediation.

New York Times 100 years ago today, July 26, 1913:
    It is said that President Wilson favors mediation in Mexico and will adopt that form of diplomatic procedure with the consent of Congress. The three recognized forms of international redress are (1) intervention by force, (2) mediation, which is an advisory function; (3) arbitration, which is a judicial function. There is still another plan frequently resorted to with success, namely, the "tender of good offices." This is distinct from mediation, and it is a rule of diplomacy that the demand of good offices, or their acceptance, does not confer the right of mediation. In regard to mediation, also, it must be remembered that the mediator lacks the powers of an arbitrator, whose award is binding on both parties. In the Mexican matter there is no cause for arbitration; it remains to be seen how far mediation, if it is really resorted to, will serve.
    Intervention would amount to interference between the parties of the Mexican dispute without the consent of either. Mediation could not be successful without the consent of both. President Huerta must be asked, virtually, to recognize his opponent as his political equal, and the belligerent rights of the rebels will practically be recognized by the United States Government. Theoretically, mediation may not at the outset go quite as far as that, but the effect will be the same. Perhaps neither side will accept mediation. That has frequently happened. In June, 1861, Lord Lyons, the British Minister at Washington, and M. Mercier, the French Minister, called on Secretary Seward and each proposed to read a note of instruction from his Government and leave a copy of the paper if desired. Mr. Seward inquired as to the content of the notes, and, after inspection, declined either to hear them read or to receive official notice of them. Both foreign Governments expressed their willingness to undertake the "kindly duty of mediation," but Mr. Seward declared that the United States could not accept mediation "from any, even the most kindly, quarter." This is a chapter in the history of diplomatic mediation which must be borne in mind in the present crisis.
    Mr. John Bassett Moore, in his "Digest of International Law," declares that a "full and frank discussion of differences conducted by the regular official representatives has been found the best way of obtaining international redress." We may imagine what course Mr. Moore would pursue in regard to the Mexican trouble if he was in control of the State Department. It is significant that Mr. Henry Lane Wilson, who has served so well as our Ambassador in Mexico in the three years of disaster, said, on his arrival yesterday, that the political situation in the sister republic, though it is bad, is not so serious as it is pictured here, and that the Huerta Government is the only real Government there. It is to be feared that the Washington view of the Mexican situation has been confused by the reports of meddlesome and ill-informed persons.
    Meanwhile it seems to be assumed that mediation in Mexico will be an easy matter, if our Government chooses to pursue that course. It certainly cannot be forced on either party in Mexico, assuming that there are two clearly defined parties there. History teaches us that mediation has been more frequently thought of and talked of than asked for or tendered. However, if mediation is decided upon, we should perform our part of it earnestly and candidly. It has sometimes served remarkably well, as in the case of the trouble between the United States and France in 1875 concerning the French spoliation treaty, when Great Britain acted as mediator. How it will work in a country in which one central Government is threatened by many contending factions remains to be seen. International law is largely a matter of cases and incidents, and general rules are sometimes hard to discover.
    The Hague convention does not seem to provide for mediation between contending parties in one country. According to its ruling, the part of the mediator consists in reconciling the opposing claims and appeasing the feelings of resentment which may have arisen "between the States at variance." But its definition of the mediator's functions is clear, and it rules that they "are at an end when once it is declared, either by one of the parties to the dispute or by the mediator himself, that the means of reconciliation proposed by him are not accepted."
    On the whole, mediation in Mexico is likely to be a difficult operation, but if conducted with skill, discretion, and forbearance, with an understanding on the part of the agent of mediation of the temper and character of the persons he is dealing with, it may have excellent results. As an alternative to intervention, which many of the vociferous mischief-makers have in mind, it would be most desirable; but intervention is quite out of the question.