The Washington times., 1913-03-07
WILSON'S PART IN MEXI.
CAN REVOLUTION.


Herald of today presents most amazing statement
of the part which Henry Lane Wilson, American am
bassador to Mexico, is alleged to have taken in the
recent revolutionary outbreak
The dispatch is of tenor very familiar to those
who in recent days have read the news emanatng
from Mexico 1t suggests inspiration by the inter-
ests that have been busy in the effort to have Mr..
Wilson retained at the Mexican post. They nave
been representing that the American colony is anxi-
that he be left there the ground that he knows
the situation fully, and enjoys the confidence of the
Huerta-Diaz regime In the view of American pub
lie opinion, this has been about the best possible
reason why Mr.. Wilson ought not to be retained.
Partnership between the United States Government
and program of perfdy and assassination does not
very strongly appeal to this nation.
We are being assured by the Mexico dis
patches that Wilson is strong in the favor Of the
American colony at the capital. The only evidence
of this has been contained in very recent communi-
cations. Before and during the revolution, he was
the object of constant attacks by Americans living
in or familiar with conditions in Mexico He was
regarded as hostile to the Madero government, and
in full sympathy with the cientfco party of Diaz
and the exploiters generally.
But the most remarkable testimonial to Mr.. Will
sons efficiency as ambassador comes in the Her
aids cabegram of today. This message, in part,
says: ~
1t made known today that the semi-oicial agree
ment between Huerta and Diaz which ended all fighting
absolutely was due to the American ambassador who
the night Madero overthrown sent notes to both
leaders asking them to come to the embassy to confer
Madero prisoner the idea of the embassy being end
hostilities and prevent loss of life.
Both came accompanied by their STATS and the
ference lasted hours. The agreement reached
only after Huerta and Diaz conferred alone in separ
ate Full terms of the agreement were
made public though formal statement was given out
partially covering it. ..-
If that dispatch is true and if it means anything
whatever, it means that the American ambassador
brought together Madero's military commander and
the leader of the revolt, and induced them to agree
on the program that made traitor of Huerta, that
compassed the treacherous arrest of Madero, and
that climaxed in mis- assassination. ...'
For such service as that Ambassador Wilson may
have powerful support among the interests which
like that kind of service; but it will commend him
to decent Americans, and his retention would give
profound concern to every Latin-American govern
ment
1t is inconceivable that Ambassador Wilson's
overzealous supporters can have far mistaken the
sentiments of this country to imagine that such
story this will gain for him support and approval
from either the State Department or the public. If
there is any justification for the statement about
Wilson's part in organizing the treachery against
Madero, it should be known in the utmost detail,
and proper measures of reputation should be taken
by this Government. They should be of such char
acter and emphasis to leave uncertainty about
the attitude of the United States
Perhaps the ideals of dollar diplomacy can dis
improperly in the spectacle of American
ambassador making himself the meeting point the
pivot and the moving force in such a monumental
treachery. Perhaps diplomacy of tine sort we have
been conducting is able to view that sort of intrigue
as commendable public service. But' to the public
at large, with its coarse crude, undiplomatic ideas,
this dispatch sounds more like charge that the
American ambassador was an accessory before the
fact of the betrayal and murder of neighboring
country's ruler.
1t is impossible to believe such story. For tine
nonor of America and the credit of its diplomacy,
there should be inquiry that will develop the truth
and give it to the world.