The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-06-02

been urging that the mediation proceed
inps be opened to the Constitutonalist
chieftain.
The Cabrera statement In effect warns
the mediators that they ought to view the
question with a liberal mind. and con-
dennis in advance any attempt on their
part to regard Huerta alone as the legal
representative OF Mexico.
Almost daily conferences have been
held between officiaS of the State Depart
ment and the Constitutionalist representa-
tiyes in Washington. Conferences OF this
character were held to-day and there was
no doubt In Washington Tonight some
OF the Administrators advisers mad
knowledge OF the statement whicn Car
ranza's spokesman expected to issue.
Cabrera's statement follows:
"Shold the Constitutionalists participate
In the Niagara Falls conferences? Such
a question Is now under consideration
, at Niagara Falls.
THE delegates Of Huerta and the
mediators say No The United States
says Yes The first thing that occurs to
one Is to ask who is to decide the ques-
ton? Is II Huerta? Is IL the mediators!
Is II the United States
ut is a question which II is necessary
| to have answered. and Its answer will no
doubt contribute to the success OF the
! conference f; II il a question to be decided
before any other point.
Certainly II Is not Huerta who Ia 10
| decide this point.
Some American newspapers take II as
| a matter of course that this point ought
to be decided by the mediators and they
criticise the State Department at Wash
| ington for introducing itself into the dis
cussion. However. nothing could be more
| logical and proper
The mediators as such are not in
! tprpstpl narfipq a the pVrpempnt that tho
| United States and Mexico should enter
| into to settle their differences.
| THE chief function OF the mediator Is
| to limit his efforts to the bringing to-
gether OF the parties and any action
which would have the effect OF drawing
them further apart is opposed to the very
| purposes OF the mediation.
Mediator Not an Arbiter.
1.-THE mediator Is not an arbiter. blu,
| even arbiters themselves cannot decide
questions OF the personality of the parties
| Such questions are only to be decided by
, the interested parties themselves. In in.
,ternational law every State recognizes
or does not recognize the government OF
other States. 1t Is n function Of SOW
ereignty and none can force such recog-
milton.
ITO England and to Germany, Huerta
Is the representative OF Mexico and should
n conflict arise between England and
Mexico none could question that England
should deal with Huerta.
But the case Is that there exists O
conflict between Mexico and the United
States, Mexico has no government recog-
nized by the United States because the
man who calls himself the President has
not been recognized by Washington, nor
by Argentina. nor by Brazil. nor by Chile
How could b and G decide now tina,
L.. .G,,- "A
Mexico?
For whom IL 1t to decide with whom
the United States is to deal?
ut is for the United States most as
suredy and for them only.
THE United States has not recognized
Huerta as the legal President of Mexico
Neither has II recognized the Constitu-
tionalists as the legal rulers OF the coun-
try.
But for the purpose OF settling the pres
ent international conflict, only the United
States can decide II they are satisfied In
dealing only with Huerta or II they want
both factions to be represented In order
to insure the success OF the mediation.
| ut Is then logical and natural thai
the United States should have the fina
| word In deciding the question. since II 1.
| the only party who is to deal with Mex
leo.
SHOULD the mediators by themselve.
decide that the United states ought q
deal with Huerta they would leave N,
role OF msdiators and appoint themselves
arblters. not only OF the internationa
question. but OF the domestic affairs o.
| Mexico.
II do not want to hurt the mediatori
or to crltlcise their actions. / only stat,
my opinion. taking as a basis the data tina
the newspapers give us on the state o
the conference at Niagara.
while considering seriously the poin
one must conclude that there Is no rea
son for criticising the attitude OF tn
United States in trying to decide tn
question. On the contrary It would b.
a subject for very severe criticism o
the mediators II they should attempt 4
decide the point. because In so actin
they would Invade the sovereignty o
other nations by deciding the question O
the participation OF the Constitutional
lists.
II understand that such questions hav
been brought before the mediators not 10
their decision. but because they are tn
channels through which such question
could be brought to the consideration o
the Interested parties in the conference.