The Alaska daily empire., 1913-08-07
AMBASSADOR WILSON AND HIS
 COURSE.

IN ACCEPTING the resignation of
 Henry Lane Wilson as ambassa-
 dor to Mexico the administration gave an exhibition of forbearance and tolerance that should make that man thank his lucky star Many Presi- dents would have unceremOniously kicked him out of office. Had he been so disposed of he would have only himself to blame for it. He has acted any part than that of an ambassador from the President of the United States to a foreign country there to care for the interest of American citi- zens. to represent the policies of his government, and to keep the diplo- matic relations of the country that he represents and that to which he is accredited in calm waters. Instead of that he mixed up in the intriques. re- belliOns and contentious of the Mex ican factions, and sought to place the power of his government behind his favorite gang of free-booters. To con summate that purpose he came to Washington. When he failed to i'm press the wisdom of his purpose upon the President and Secretary of State, he appealed to Senators and Repre- sentatives to override the branch of the government to which he was at tached To them he attacked his su- periors in the executive branch of the Nation.
 Those that have followed the course of events in Mexico closely and dis interestedly will agree that the New York World understated rather than exaggerated the mendacity of Ambas- sadOr Wilson's course, when it said:
 Making every allowance for the diff faculties of his situation, it must be ad- mitted that the utterances of Henry Lane Wilson, Ambassador to Mexico, reveal a strange conception of diplo- macy and duty.
 In the diplomatic service men are charged, above all things else, with loyalty to the governments they rep resent and with fairness and courte- sy among whom they are to live.
 Mir. Wilson is not only in opposition to the Administration at Washington; he is contemptuous of it. He has a Mexican policy of his own directly in conflict with that of the State Depart ment. He speaks of the ignorance that prevails at our capital. He critieises the Secretary of State. He says what can be done and what cannot in the way of mediation and intervention.
 On the other hand, although an ex- treme partisan of Gen. Huerta, the die tator, he assails Mexicans of all class es. The people will not fight for lib erty and national honor, he says; they must be enticed by promises of pillage. The men in arms against Huerta's usurpation he describes as bandits, robbers and murderers.
 Of the slain President Madero and his family, of the fatal attempt to establish constitutional government and of all who suffered by the triumph of intrigue and assassination last win ter, he can find no words but those of condemnation. He was for Huerta be- fore the revolt; he was for Huerta af- ter the murder of Madero; he is for Huerta now. Speaking for Huerta as if by authority, he says that mediation will not be accepted.
 In brief, the American Ambassador to Mexico appears as sort of under writer of a tyranny having it's origin in secret murder and holding place desperately by the subversion of lib- erty and law. He can see nothing in the situation in Mexico but Huerta, nothing in the situation in the United States but a necessity for the recog- milton of Huerta, and no hope for peace or property except in Huerta, sustained by our influence and our favor exerted in his behalf alone.
 We believe that this Ambassadors sentiments as expressed officially and unoficially explain many of the things that have happened in Mexico in the last six months, but in way different from that intended. They confirm the reports of last winter that he was se- cretly on friendly terms with Diaz and SPLENDID NEW OFFERING