The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1914-05-29
THE PRESIDENTS AIM

Those who have desired to see fur
Their into what the President hopes
may be accomplished in Mexico will
find much that they were seeking for
in his widely quoted interview, first
printed in the Saturday Evening Post.
In that interview he declares once
more the determination of the United
States not to seek one foot of Mexican
territory. He disclaims any desire Of
the United States for n national in
demnity and says no money claim
will be made except for losses unjust
ly sustained by American citizens. He
reafiirms oposition to any policy which
will permit the exploitation of Mexi-
can sources for the benefit of foreign
ers. American or otherwise, and gives
new expression to the wish OF the
people Of this country that stable,
constitutional government may be
established in Mexico. Upon these
points there is no dissent among the
people of the United States except in
the minds OF few isolated men who
shout for war and conquest. The DIFF
ferences are simply as to what this
country should do and how far it can
go in helping Mexico. There are those
who think our benevolent attitude to-
ward Mexico should have been n hat
ter of sentiment only and that the
wisest policy will be to protect Amer
lean interests and leave Mexico to
fight out its own troubles. At the
other extreme are the interventionists.
In d way, the President enters this
controversy when he clearly expresses
his wish that this country shall bring
its influence to bear in favor Of
just problem. That problem, which
is completely bound up with the land
question, is to find a way to lift the
oppressed poems of Mexico out Of their
condition of virtual slavery. The low
er classes of Mexico, comprising the
bulk of the population, have been rob-
bed of their land by the upper classes
and their helpless dependence upon
the upper classes is the result of land
monopoly. 1t was the land question
which raised Madero up and dashed
DiaZ down. The murder of Madero
WAS n murder in the interest of land
monopolists.
So long as the upper classes con-
tinue to hold the land which they
took from the peasants by force and
chicanery, there will be no sc!id foun-
dation for peace in Mexico. Neither
can these people, held in virtual slav-
cry, be the foundation of a constitu-
tional government.
II is clear that the hope of the
United States for peace and order in
Mexico will only be realized when this
land question is on the way TO settle
ment. II is reasonable, therefore,
that the United States should interest
itself in that question and do what
may be done TO find a solution of it.
In broad sense, the United States
might be said to intervene If it takes
an active part in the settlement Of
this purely Mexican problem, but it
does not follow that the United States
must send soldiers to the City Of Mex.
leo for that purpose.
The president makes it clear that
he does not believe in the government
of MeXicans bv Americans any more
than he believes in the government of
most Of the Mcxcans by few MeXi-
cans and he expressly disclaims any
wish to dictate the method by which
| the land problem shall be solved. That
is their problem and we do not know
at this time who will eventually be
responsible for working it out That
it will not be Huerta is certain. It
may be Carranza and it may be that
events will so shane themselves as to
make him Il willing listener to the
United States when his land policy
is fromulated.-St. Louis Republic,