To Aid Americans Leaving Mexico.

New York Times 100 years ago today, August 2, 1913:
Bryan Asks Congress to Vote $100,000 to Pay Fare of Those in Distress.
MAY PRESAGE NEW POLICY
Lawmakers Urge Equal Treatment of Federals and Rebels in Matter of Arms.
REBUFF TO ENVOY WILSON
House Committee, to Please Executive, Rescinds Invitation to Him to Advise It.
Special to The New York Times.
    WASHINGTON, Aug. 1.— On the eve of important developments in the policy of the Wilson Administration toward the Mexican situation, Secretary of State Bryan took the significant step to-day of asking the House of Representatives to appropriate $100,000 to enable the State Department to provide transportation out of Mexico for distressed American citizens in that country. This action may he preliminary to putting into effect whatever plan the Administration has decided on for the settlement of the situation. When Ambassador Wilson was before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations this week he advocated the removal of all American citizens from Mexico before any drastic policy on existing conditions there should be adopted by the United States.
    Secretary Bryan's letter asking for money to bring distressed Americans from Mexico was addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury. It follows:
    I have the honor to request that you will submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, with a view to its inclusion in the Urgent Deficiency bill to be reported to that body, the inclosed item of appropriation of $100,000 for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to furnish transportation to their homes in the United States of those American citizens who by long-continued conditions or turbulence in Mexico have there become destitute and may find it necessary for their safety or well-being to leave Mexico, and who are unable to pay for their own transportation. Secretary McAdoo sent the letter to Speaker Clark with his approval.

Still Firm Against Huerta.
    Developments to-day indicated clearly that the time was near when the United States Government would make a change of policy in dealing with conditions in the perturbed republic. The indications were that this would take the form either of shutting off the supply of arms from the Huerta forces or permitting both sides to receive arms without restriction, then leaving the factions to fight it out among themselves.
    President Wilson is as firmly set as ever against the recognition of President Huerta, and he still is making inquiries with the intention of obtaining support for his plan of mediation between the contending factions, but the trend of opinion in Administration and legislative quarters is toward some course that can be made effective much more quickly than any of the several comprehensive plans suggested by President Wilson and Henry Lane Wilson, the American Ambassador to Mexico.
    The publication in The Times to-day of telegrams from Gen. Lucio Blanco, revolutionary Governor of the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico, and Acting Gov. I. L. Pesqueira of the State of Sonora, one of the principal leaders in the revolutionary movement, in which they rejected the mediation programme and advocated that the revolutionists be permitted to import munitions of war from the United States, has served to point out a way to bring the Mexican difficulties to an end that is acceptable to many public men here.
    The suggestion in which Gov. Blanco and Gov. Pesqueira unite already had received consideration from President Wilson and his advisers on the Mexican situation. It was discussed at a conference among the President, Chairman Bacon of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and Chairman Flood of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, prior to the arrival of Ambassador Wilson in Washington last week. At that time, President Wilson was not inclined to favor this plan, but indicated that he was not hostile to a phase of it which contemplated cutting off the supply of arms and ammunition from this country to the Huerta forces in Mexico.
    In the last few days, however, there has been a return on the part of Senators and Representatives to the idea which Blanco and Pasqueira indorse, and the belief is growing here that if the President's efforts toward mediation are not successful, or the pressure being brought to bear on Huerta by influential friends to retire from the Presidency is without effect, this Government will decide as a first step in dealing with the Mexican situation to cut off the supply of munitions of war from the Huerta forces or to throw down the bars so that both the Federals and the Constitutionalists may receive such munitions from the United States without restriction, and thus be able to fight it out on a fairly equal basis.

European Pressure Denied.
    A development of the day was an official denial issued by Secretary Bryan after a conference with the President of published statements that European Governments had served notice on the United States Government that, unless it brought conditions in Mexico to an end, European nations would land armed forces there to protect their own interests. The formal denial made by Mr. Bryan follows:
    The statement which appears in some of the morning papers to the effect that European Governments are bringing pressure to bear on the United States to compel aggressive action in Mexico is entirely without foundation.
    One of the interesting things that grew out of the situation had to do with the canceling of arrangements for the appearance of Ambassador Wilson before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The committee had decided to call Mr. Wilson before it, but President Wilson put his veto on the proposition. Congressmen who professed to know the inside of the story said the President requested the committee not to call the Ambassador because, when the envoy appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations he converted members of that committee to his plan of action, with which President Wilson does not agree.
    The decision not to have Mr. Wilson appear before the House committee, reached very suddenly this afternoon, was based on information from the White House that President Wilson considered It "ill-advised" for the House committee to have the Ambassador appear before it. As stated in The Times this morning. Chairman Flood of the House committee had arranged to invite Mr. Wilson to appear before it. When the committee met this morning, Mr. Flood moved that an invitation to testify be sent to Mr. Wilson through Secretary Bryan. After taking that action, the committee adjourned.

President Opposes Hearing.
    Meanwhile, Chairman Flood had been informed that President Wilson did not look favorably on the plan. After his committee adjourned the Chairman telephoned to Mr. Tumulty, Secretary to the President, informing him of the action, and saying he had since been told that the President thought such action would be ill-advised. He asked Mr. Tumulty whether that statement represented the attitude of the President. Mr. Flood was informed it did. He indicated he would endeavor to have the committee rescind its invitation, since its members were desirous of working in harmony with the Administration.
    Mr. Flood sought the other committeemen and told them of the information he had received from the White House. The action was rescinded. It is not now the intention of the House committee to seek any testimony from Ambassador Wilson.
    When the committee had rescinded its action there was an exchange of telegrams between Chairman Flood and Ambassador Wilson. The Chairman received this morning from Ambassador Wilson, who was in the Waldorf-Astoria, New York, the following dispatch:
    I note in the morning paper that you have asked me to appear before the House committee. Had had no notice, but wish you to understand that I am at committee's order at the Waldorf. Immediate action necessary, as parties on eve of departure.

    HENRY LANE WILSON. Chairman Flood, after the committee rescinded its action, sent the following reply to Ambassador Wilson: Replying to your telegram just received, I beg to say that the committee has concluded that it in not necessary or desirable under existing circumstances and conditions to have you appear before it. Neither is there any occasion to delay departure of parties mentioned in your telegram.

    HENRY D. FLOOD. Although Ambassador Wilson's telegram indicated he was not aware the House Committee had desired his appearance, Chairman Flood said this evening that in a talk with Mr. Wilson in the Chevy Chase Club on Wednesday he told the Ambassador he would like him to give the committee the benefit of his information and advice, and Mr. Wilson consented to appear. Mr. Flood was asked as to the meaning of the sentence in each of the dispatches exchanged relative to "the departure of parties," but he said he was unable to interpret the phrase.

Mann Objects to Partisanship.
    In connection with President Wilson's veto of the invitation, it came out that Representative James R. Mann of Illinois, the Republican leader in the House, had entered a protest against the course of the Democratic members of the Foreign Affairs Committee in considering the Mexican situation without notifying their Republican Committee associates to be present. Leader Mann told Chairman Flood that partisan politics in Congress was not involved in the Mexican affair, (and that it was improper for the Democratic members of the committee to exclude the Republican members from their discussion. Mr. Flood sought counsel with President Wilson and the President indorsed Mr. Mann's views. Hereafter the Mexican troubles will be considered by the House Foreign Affairs Committee only when the Republican as well as the Democratic members are present.
    Among Democratic Senators President Wilson's evident opposition to any plan involving the recognition of Provisional President Huerta is making itself felt. The Democrats either were silent on the subject to-day or else expressed complete agreement with the Wilson Administration.
    Republican Senators, however, seem to be inclining more and more to some affirmative course resembling the policy outlined by the recalled Ambassador. While they will not say as much for publication, they are letting it be known that in the cloak rooms armed intervention is the subject of much discussion.
    Many Senators say it seems to be a question of immediate recognition or early intervention, but they qualify this statement by adding that they are not yet quite sure in their own minds which course should be followed.
    The strongest protest yet presented against the course of American diplomacy was filed by Senator Sheppard of Texas to-day in the form of a resolution passed by the Senate of Texas. This resolution flatly asserts that the death of Americans and the destruction of their property are due to a "persistent refusal" of the Government of the United States to extend proper protection.
    The resolution, which incorporates the plank of the Democratic platform recently presented by Senator Fall of New Mexico, was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations without debate. It reads:

Accuses Government of Laxity.
    Whereas, American lives have been jeopardized and American property destroyed in Mexico by a persistent refusal of this Government to extend proper protection to its citizens and their property in that country, when other foreign countries were protecting their citizens and their property rights by a firm attitude, and
    Whereas, A firm and dignified policy which recognizes and respects the rights of our neighboring republic and demands in return respect of the rights of our citizens there should tend to preserve peace by promoting mutual respect, and
    Whereas, The national Democratic platform adopted at Baltimore on July 12, 1912, contains the following declaration of party faith, to wit:
    We pledge ourselves anew to preserve the sacred rights of American citizenship at home and abroad. The constitutional rights of American citizens should protect them on our borders and go with them throughout the world, and every American citizen residing or having property in any foreign country is entitled to and must be given the full protection of the United States Government for himself and his property.
    Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate of Texas that the Government of the United States should redeem and give meaning to the foregoing pledge of party faith in vindication of the National honor. In some quarters it is suggested that the new policy which President Wilson lets it be understood he is formulating already is being put into effect in the unusually vigorous demands that recently have been made to Mexican authorities for the protection of Americans. Those demands, which, in the case of Inspector Dixon at Ciudad Juarez and in that of the American party arrested by Gen. Orozco in Chihuahua City, were obeyed immediately, were couched in language of a harshness heretofore unknown in American dealings with Mexico.