nothing but their own greed for the chattels of the people whose resources they are trying to barter in exchange for a loan intended to benefit none but themselves.

Only a thorughly representative government could assume such a debt, and when such a government is established in Mexico it could not in justice be held responsible for it. It is grotesque, in the face of facts any one can ascertain, to assert that these men, or indeed any Mexican revolutionists, "represent at least the fierce passion of reconstruction"; they represent exactly the opposite, a fierce passion (the term is perfect) for destruction, and they have never pretended anything else. Obregon in one of his bombastic manifestos last year said he preferred to see Mexico "turned into a huge cemetery than see it in the hands of the 'reaction." He has lived up to this principle.

999

It is the same with all of themVilla, Zapata, etc. I know what I am talking about, for friends and myself have just spent the last year in Morelos, and we have ridden through what was once the garden of Mexico, through our one time model plantations, and we have seen nothing but ruin and desolationnot a corn plot in the great fields, not a head of cattle on the ranges, not a soul in the deserted and burned villages.

I wish the poor people of Mexico could be made to vote as to what they would sooner have the "oppression" of the old days or the liberty" of to-day. "Maldita revolucion!" the Zapatista women would often cry in the streets of Cuantala.

It is not true there existed an unquenchable yearning for land among the "peons." That is one of the

fables with which the American public (and the Mexican townfolk to some extent) has been "fed up" against all facts. I doubt if there is any country in America where in proportion to its population there are so many small agricultural holdings as there are in Mexico.

If any proof 'is needed that the working man in Mexico does not pine for the land there are our haciendas in Morelos, where the storm center of the agrarian unrest is supposed to have started, with their matchless irrigated lands unclaimed and untilled, though commission after commission has tried to divide them up among country folk who will have nothing to do with them.

"Who told you we wanted land?" I once heard some women ask a Zapatista. "We want food and work, and to be as we were before.” fore."

The agrarian commissions when offering the land to the people invariably met with the same reply, "We don't want land. We want the haciendas to start working again, so that we may earn our living as we used to."

What you say about Carranza not daring to show his face without a guard of soldiers is exactly true. No faction is so thoroughly hated as

Carranza's. Villa and Zapata possibly have still a few misguided sympathizers-Carranza has none except his immediate followers. He made himself hated by every class, by every institution, from the outset; he disarmed and disbanded the old federal army, heaping contumely on its officers; he put into the street all government employes, including those of the national lines, some 30,000 of them; he dismissed all the

school teachers; he drove the commerce, big and small, to despair; he bullied the bankers; he persecuted the foreign colonies, deporting hundreds of their members, among whom were some diplomats; in the churches his hordes committed untold indecencies and sacreliges; he drove out, tortured and murdered priests, while nuns were indescribably outraged by his men-let nobody come to tell us the last statement is anything but a solemn, hideous truth.

Let us piously believe you are right when you say that perhaps if Mr. Wilson could see Mexico as it is to-day as a result of his mistaken policy he would be moved to act. But what is beyond doubt is that it is not war that Mexico needs, nor could there be such a thing with the Mexican people unarmed and starving. What is wanted is a work of rescue from and protection against the prowling wolves that now de facto oppress the helpless population.

You cannot conceive to what an extent all classes are longing for this rescue and say so openly.

"Quen vengan los Americanos" is the universal prayer-it is secretly offered up in the churches.

Nor is the talk of rescue going to be the sanguinary fight some people here think and the blustering revolutionist make believe; on the contrary, if it is properly organized, it is going to be an easy, pleasant task -I might almost say a triumphal march.

The bandit chiefs won't be long in seeing the unfortunates who have been obliged by threats and by hunger to follow desert them by hundreds. Not shells and bullets but food and kind treatment will win the day. Already the behavior of

your troops in Vera Cruz is known' in all the country, for the Veracruzanos proclaim it from the housetops that they never had a better time than during the months of the American occupation.

There is one point upon which I must join issue. It is not fair to put Felix Diaz in the same boat as Villa, Zapata and Carranza. Neither my friends nor myself have ever taken any part in politics, nor are we Felicistas, but we must recognize that there is an abyss between Felix Diaz and the three others.

He is neither a robber or a murderer. He certainly failed in the two attempts he has made in overcoming the robbers' "revolution," but if you Americans have definitely determined to allow the Mexican people to fight out its destinies—an awful prospect-Diaz is the only "white hope" in sight and we will have to support him. He has the right ideas and his stay in the United States has done him no end of good as indeed, is the case with the hun-' dred thousand Mexicans who have been obliged to seek refuge in this country.

If the revolution had no other advantage (it is difficult to see any other) its taking so many Mexicans out of their narrow existence will have been an untold blessing-it will have made "traveled men" of them. When they return to their devastated homes they will be different beings, their horizons widened, their aspirations extended. I think we must watch Felix Diaz; he is doing exceedingly well, we know. The population, amazed at armed forces respecting lives and property, are receiving him with enthusiasm.-Sept. 15, 1916.

THE FIERCE PASSION FOR

RECONSTRUCTION

They (the Carranzistas) represent the fierce passion for reconstruction.-President Wilson in Shadow Lawn speech.

Mexico gives credit to Gen. Venustiano Carranza for superlative ability. He has set a mark it will be difficult for other reformers to reach. In time of revolution he has made the nation's exports increase. He has swelled his war chest. He has done remarkable things.

Don Venustiano began his great work of reconstruction by dismissing the school teachers of Mexico. To cut down expenses he stripped all the federal departments of typewriters, furniture, tapestries, etc. These were shipped to Vera Cruz, exported and sold. Of the School of Mines and the Department of Agriculture he left the walls. For some reason he did not take the paintings out of the national gallery.

Such cattle as remained were driven from the fields to Vera Cruz, sold or exported. Furniture of wealthy Mexicans was taken because it would do more good in the cause of reconstruction than in the households of the owners. There was one shipment of fifty-seven carloads of such furniture to Vera Cruz.

The exports of the republic showed a gratifying increase.

Mexico is being reconstructed most thoroughly. There formerly were three classes, the rich, the middle, and the poor. Now there are but two, the robbers and the robbed.

There is no sign of Don Venustiano's fierce reconstruction passion abating.-Sept. 18, 1916.

THE FIERCE PASSION FOR

RECONSTRUCTION

They (the Carranzistas) represent the fierce passion for reconstruction.-President Wilson in Shadow Lawn speech.

Figuratively the right hand of His Excellency Don Venustiano Carranza is Gen. Obregon, and the left hand is Gen. Pablo Gonzales.

Obregon we know about. Gonzales has not been in the international limelight so much, but he has been governor of Mexico City, and lately of the state Morelos, which is the richest part of Mexico.

The power, the influence of Gonzales is great.

Gen. Gonzales has a nephew, who is much like the general in character. The nephew was a hostler, roustabout, drinking resort hangeron before civil war gave opportunity for his high talent.

One form in which the fierce passion for reconstruction manifested itself with the nephew of the general was in desire to possess Señora Feleciana Gutierrez, one of the most respected and charming young women of Mexico City. Señora Gutierrez's father-in-law, Señor Zetna, is a manufacturer of high rank and is known as the "Ford" of Mexico.

That a good, pure woman should be horror stricken at his advances incensed the nephew of Carranza's left hand. To teach a lesson to others of her kind he rode out to the Bosque de Chapultepec, and, waiting there until Señora Gutierrez, as was her daily custom, took her automobile drive along the famous avenue through the woods of Chapultepec, he shot her to death.

The nephew of the brave Gen. Gonzales is still at large and still has a fierce passion for reconstruction.-Sept. 19, 1916.

JAPAN'S WORDS AND HER

DEEDS

The archives of the State department at Washington contain a letter written to Elihu Root, when he was Secretary of State, by Baron Kogoro Takahira, Japanese ambassador to the United States in 1908.

That letter was written at a psychological moment.

At that time Japanese-American relations were undergoing a strain. The anti-Japanese agitation in California was approaching an eruptive stage. There was a feeling in America that Japanese policy in China was not in harmony with America's desire that China should have an opportunity to achieve her own destiny without interference from foreign sources. America feared that the "open door," enunciated by John Hay, might be closed by Japan. Rumors of aggressive purposes by Japan in the great country across the Yellow sea were finding wide circulation in the American press.

To restore confidence in its purposes the the Japanese government, through Baron Takahira, submitted a draft of its understanding of the spirit and aims of existing agreements between the United States and Japan. The Japanese ambassador wrote as follows, among other things:

They (the two governments) are determined to preserve the common interests of all powers in China by supporting

by all pacific means at their disposal the independence and integrity of China and the principle of equal opportunity for commerce and industry of all nations in that empire.

Should any event occur threatening the status quo as above described or the principle of equal opportunity as above defined, it remains for the two governments to communicate with each other in order to arrive at an understanding as to what measures they may consider it useful to take.

Has Japan kept these pledges?

Did Japan respect the independence and integrity of China when, under stress of armed force, Tokio compelled Pekin in 1915 to accept a series of fourteen demands which included:

The appointment of Japanese political, tinancial and military advisers for China?

The granting of special rights to Japan in Inner Mongolia?

The granting of a monopoly to the Hanyeh-Ping Steel Company after it had been handed over to Japanese control?

Were these events such as would threaten the "status quo" as defined in Japan's pledge? And did Japan, in accordance with the plain language of the Takahira letter to Mr. Root, communicate with this government for the friendly action suggested in that communication?

Since the above acts by Japan, plainly aimed at the destruction, not only of the open door principle but also of the status quo in China, Japan, with Russia's consent, has taken further aggressive steps in

China. The new demands presented at Pekin by Tokio include:

The appointment of Japanese military advisers for the Chinese army in Southern Manchuria and Eastern Mongolia.

The recognition of "special interests" for Japan in Inner Mongolia and Southern Manchuria, comprising powers of police and administration, preference in loans and in the selection of all foreign advisers.

The appointment of Japanese military instructors in all Chinese schools and colleges.

These further demands can mean only one thing, if they mean anything at all. They mean the firm establishment of Japanese military, financial and police power in Inner Mongolia and Southern Manchuria, and an extension of Japanese influence in all the schools in China.

Did Japan regard these new measures of domination in China as inimical to the status quo as well as the open door in that country? And did the Japanese government notify Washington in advance of its intended proceedings, in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the Takahira pledge?

Or did the United States find it necessary, after the publication of the news of Japan's latest aggression, to inquire at Tokio as to the meaning of the new move, only to receive in response the usual Japanese denial of sinister motives in its dealings with China?

The situation in its latest aspects concerns us closely. The administration at Washington is creating a problem of increasing seriousness. for its successors. Thomas F. Millard, in his notable book, "Our Eastern Question," points out the fact that a Japan intrenched in China would be more difficult to deal with ten years from now than she is now.

In this vast game with destiny Time is Japan's ally. Will America suffer the game to go on to its logical conclusion?-Sept. 19, 1916.

JAPAN AND THE BALKANS

One of the impressive developments of the world war is the effect it has had of bringing into direct contact nations and races separated by oceans and by hemispheres. Two years ago, or even a year ago, a clash between Japan and Bulgaria would have been regarded as an impossible event. To-day Japan is seriously considering the advisability of dispatching an army to the Balkans to resist Bulgaria's attack upon Serbia, whose fate was of no possible concern to Tokio a year ago.

The discussion in Tokio is symptomatic of Japan's anxiety to take a direct part in European affairs in their present state of confusion. If Japan lands an army in the Balkans, she will place the powers of the quadruple entente under a heavier obligation than they have yet incurred. That obligation must be discharged in some substantial fashion-and what quid pro quo could be more substantial and more welcome to the Japanese than a pledge of "hands off" in the event of a further development of Japan's ambitions?

Such a triumph of Japanese diplomacy in the present crisis might prove a matter of concern to the American people in the event of any vital difference of opinion that might arise between Washington and Tokio in the future-and Tokio is not nearly as far from Washington, as facilities of communication go, as it is from Sofia. Thus a disturbance in the Balkans echoes around