South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1916-06-30


TO decide as 10 the withdrawal.
1T Is not that the constitutional
ist government wishes 20 leave un--
punished the crimes committed 10y
the bands OF outlaws. nor that il
refuses TO capture and destroy or
dispense them. but al the same time
this government cannot tolerate as
10 has repeatedly stated 20 the de-
Iartment Of state. continuous pres
ence OF the American expedition of
troops in Mexican territory. who
have no right 10 be there.
The incursiOn of bandits 10 Glenn
Springs. or the bandit raids in the
territory Of the state of Texas. could
not be imputed or responsibility
placed on the Mexican government.
but 10 the negligence Of the Ameri-
can government in not protecting
properly its frontiers in that region.
Besides it is very doubtful that this
band could have been organized in
Mexican territory as stated, and we
have very strong reasons and mo-
tives 10 believe that the organization
Of that band of outlaws took place
in the United States.
Calls Funston Liar.
1T is true that Gen. Obregon no.
titled Gems. Scott and Funston that
the Mexican government would not
consent 10 the trespassing of Amer
lean troops into Mexico and that due
orders were already given to all the
military commanders of the frontier
. not TO consent to the same.
When Gen. Obregon showed
Gems Scott and Funston a copy of
a newspaper published in FL Paso.
Texas, asked if it was true. as that
paper stated, that new American
troops had crossed into Mexico due
to the incident at Boquillas or
Glenn Springs. Gen. Funston per-
sonally answered as follows:
L have never given such orders
and have no knowledge of such
movement of troops.
Between men of loyalty and
honor. the answer of Funston could
not be construed in any other man
ner but as a negative that the troops
had crossed the border, but never
theless the note now states that the
declaration made by Funston was
made before such orders were given
and not after.
1T now seems that Gen. Funston
made this declaration to hide a
movement which he had already in
view and that he based his affirma-
ton on the fact that although con-
| templating same he had not yet
] \.
tons
1T does not appear that the de-
partment of state is assuming a dig
I Eifed position in availing itself Of
this weak argument TO favor its
course. 1t is not true that Gen.
/ Scott and Gen. Funston during the
/ conferences with Gen. Obregon men
/ tened the possibilities of a new
| punitive expedition in the direction
! Of Tamaulipas on account of the
activities attributed to De La Rosa
| and Pedro Vina.
Is Contradiction.
1T results in an indefensible con-
/ tradiction when in the note it is
stated that the crossing OF troops
which took place on the tenth Of
1 May was done only after properly
/ advising the local military authori-
ties and 10 assure in the following
/ paragraph that in a distance of I6S
miles within Mexican territory the
/ American expedition did not find
a solitary Mexican detachment nor
even a single soldier.
Gen. Scott did not want to take
] in, h. nj. -
tect the frontier by means OF a re-
ciprocal distribution of troops on
the whole length of the dividing
line. and always continued 70 insist
in the signing of the memorandum
that as already stated contained a
condition impossible to be acce pied
by the Mexican government, and
which Gen. Obregon, Obeying orders
from the first chief, refused 10 rati-
fly.
"All the charges made against the
government of the United States
and the many obstacles it has al
ways placed in the way make i'm
possible the pacification of Next
co are true and we still affirm them
inasmuch as the note does not re-
flute them. but on the contrary con-
fesses to the truth of them
in regard 10 the stoppage of en-
barge on the Importation of arms
and ammunition into Mexico terri
tory it is a simply excuse to claim
that it was done with the only OBJ
ject Of making it impossible for
constitutionalist arms and ammuni-
ton 10 fall into the hands OF Villa
as it is a we'll established fact that
the constitutionalist government
took possess of the frontier in the
Juarez district since January of the
current year.
1T is true that the Mexican press
is friendly TO the constitutionalist
government. but this government
does not think it is privileged tc
place a muzzle on the papers and
stop them from giving their free
opinion.
Press Is Controlled.
The American press. although in
the note il is claimed that the Unit
ed States does not exercise any CEN
sorship over il. is controlled. il Is
patent. that il is controlled on poll.
teal grounds by the American gov
/ eminent