The labor argus. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1906-1915, 1911-05-04

Tnince words in criticisng President
Taft for sending United States
troops to the border 10 assist Wall
Street in retaining the stranglehold
upon that alleged '.repuhlic." The
Weakly" says:
Why Is the President massing
troops on the Mexican border?
What reason has he for making a
warlike demonstration which is
sounding an alarm in every quarter
of the world?
What canon Of International law
can he invoke to justify rushing a
formidable army equipped for bat
tie to the boundry of q country at
peace with our government?
What precedent of intervention
can he offer as IN excuse for med
ding in the internal affairs of Mex
leo at this time?
Can he forecast the complications
with foreign powers which may re-
suit?
Congress should require the. Pres
ident to give a strict accounting of
this extraordinary use OF the army
and navy.
The whole affair gems Incredible
1t is unprecedented.
In n time OF profound peace tho
President hurls the army and navy
10 the borders of n friendly nation.
a quarter OF the standing army is
put in the field with equipment, am
munition and supplies.
The start was made under the thin
pretense that ii was n military man
euver.
This Is quickly laid aside, and cor
respondents travelling with the Presi-
dent on his southern jaunt announce
that tho purpose is ITO stamp ont
the Mexican Instruction" and If
necessary to this end to Intervene
That is to say, to invade this, our
ncighboring republic.
IF this means anything. it means
war.
To all intcnts and purposes it is
the beginning of hostilitics against
the Mexican republic.
The Constitution vests in the Con-
gress the right 70 make war, and
rightly So
The people pay the bill and give
their lives.
1t is right that they should be con-
suited.
Tho time is past. at least we
thought the time had passed. when
wars were made by kings to serve
their selfish purposes
But We are told that this is not
war, it is intervention
Never in our history have We done
this thing before.
Taft had before him the example
of line of Presidents from Grant
to Mckinley, who. for period Of
nearly thirty years, exhausted every
resource of craftsmanship and dip
lomncy to avoid intervention. Their
wisdom and foresight should have
admonishcd him to pause and con-
slider the consequence likely to re-
suit from his acts as he rushed his
orders that Monday night to mobilize
an army on the Mexican frontier and
then hurried away to Augusta to
play golf.
Ills illustrious predecessors knew
that intervention spelled war. They
knew that war is hell"
In the case of Cuba more than
100000 helpless natives were killed
in the long struggle for liberty, and
still intervention was not invoked.
Our commerce with the island,
valued at more than $10O.O00,0O0
annually, was totally destroyed. and
still suffers.
Millious of the property of Amcri-
can citizens Was laid waste. and yet
no President advised intervention.
American citizens in Cuba, were
imprisoned and crucly maltrcatcd in
violation Of treaty and international
rights. and still the President did not
call for intervention.
Not until the battleship Maine was
blown up. killing 2GG men and Off
GERS. and even then. not until Con-
Gress- authorized intervention did
President Mckinley order the Amer
lean fleet to Havana.
We intorventcd in Cuba. but it
was Congress. not the President. that
took action. and it meant war
And in Cuba We interviewed to help
Il people struggling for their liber-
ties.
We did not intc-:cnc to throttle
instruction.
We did not use our ships or army
10 uphold tryanncal government of
Spain.
Yet today wc arc told by the Pres
ilcnt of the United States that tho
out at any cost.
Since when has the government
taken sides against an oppressed peo-
pie struggling for liberty?
Did President Taft. affable. hob
nobhing with President Diaz last au-
1umn open I new chapter in Amcri-
ran history?
What is tho reason for this IN
authorized declaration of war against
the struggling Mexican people and