Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1916-07-06

that LOO men under the command of
Gen. Luis Gutierrez, should march at
full speed to the northern region of
the state of chihuahua to pursue the
bandits who. after having committed
outlaw acts In a foreign territory.
were returning to their own country.
Parrai Act imprudent.
1T is an established fact that the in
cident at Parral was precipitated by
the imprudent act Of the American
commander who entered the town
when he was well aware that the con-
stitutionalist government never gave
him permission to enter or for the pres
ence of the American troops in our
territory, and much less take posses
sion Of towns. 1t is also true that the
troops of the eonstitutionalist govern
ment protected the American troops
against the very just indignation Of
the people of Parral for their pres
ence In said town.
ut is of public domain that persecu-
ton of villa was Immediately started
and that the marauder bands were
soon scattered.
ut Is gratuitous imputation Of the
American government that the consti-
nationalist government was not anx-
ious to end these incursions or to pun
ish the guilty for the crimes committed.
1T Is inexact in every manner Of
form the imputation of lack Of loyalty
on the part of the constitutionalist
troops which Is referred to In the note.
Army's Presence Unlawful.
''The constitutionallst government
could not help but consider unlawful
the presence of the American troops
In Mexican territory because the or
ders which this army had from its own
government and as published by the
American press were to commence the
persecution of villa and his bandits,
returning to their own territory once
these bands were dispersed or that the
constitutionalist troops should take
up the pursuit, as they have done.
"The note calls attention to what
really was no more than simple pro-
position that the Mexican government
made conditionally to the government
of the United States, in a note dated
the tenth of March, for the reciprocity
for the passage Of troops in pursuit Of
the bandits In case that In any other
region of the frontier the Columbus
incident should be repeated In the
future.
Agreement Not Repudiated.
This provisional proposition could
never be called an agreement, and
therefore it is not true that the consti-
nationalist government has repudiated
any agreement.
ut is absolutely untrue that the con-
stitutionalist government should have
considered the form and nature of an
agreement for the mutual trespass of
troops for the prosecution of bandits.
What really the constitutionalist gov
eminent wanted was to fix the terms
and conditions for future difficulties
that might arise between one and the
other country and to satisfy the Mex
lean people as to the reason Of the
presence of American soldiers in our
own territory.
'The United States really has tried to
abuse and not to use a fundamental
and defined agreement, because in all
its acts 1t could be easily seen that
they have not wanted to limit them
selves to the persecution of bandits.
but to enlarge their radius of action.
"The Mexican government has had
and still has a perfect right to de-
mand from the government of the
United States the immediate with
drawal of it's troops because the stay
of these troops In Mexico is not due
to any existing agreement nor has 1t
any object.
ut is no true that the presence of
the American troops In Mexico is the
only guaranty against further bandit
crimes and the only effective way of
protecting the lives and property Of
the Americans. On the contrary, the
stay of these troops In Mexican ter
ritory is the actual cause Of many
new raids attempted by enemies Of
the constitutionalist government with
the express object Of provoking in
ternational difficulties"