Bisbee daily review., 1916-07-01
DEFY SEEN IN
 CARRANzA REPLY
(Continued From Page D

(Continued From Page n government had no desire to prevent attacks is untrue.
 Tt is absolutely untrue that Mexi- | can troops have been guilty of dis | loyalty as imputed in the note of the | '. S. Department of State. The Mex | ican government could not do less than consider improper the presence
 of American troops on Mexican soil,
 since the original orders given to theme were. according to the Ameri- can press. to undertake immediate pursuit of the Villa bandits and re- turn to their encampments.
 Tt is also true that the constitu- tionalist government protected Amer | ican troops against the just indigna- | tion of the populace at Parral who
 were aroused by the presence. i Says obregon Deceived "The note of the secretary Of, state describes as a convention what was simply a proposition which the Mexi- can government made conditionally to the government of the United States in the note of March 10. to es- | tablish reciprocity in the passage of troops in pursuit of bandits, if, at any other part of the frontier, there should occur acts such as those at
 Columbus. This provisional proposi- tion cannot be called a convention
 and consequently it is untrue that the constitutionalist government has re- pudiated the convention. What the
 constitutionalist government desires was to define the terms of the agree ment and the conditions, so as to ob- viate any misunderstanding that might arise between the two coun- tries, and also in any event, to satis- fy the Mexican people in regard to the cause for the presence of Ameri- can troops in Mexican territory.
 "The United States has undertaken to advise the terms of agreement, as fall it's acts show evidently that it did not wish to confine itself to the pur- suit of the bandits"
 Can't Tolerate U. S. Troops.
 The constitutionalist government does not wish bandits to go unpunish- ed nor does it refuse to destroy and disperse them. But the government can tolerate, in no manner the con. tinued presence on Mexican territory of American troops who have no ex- cuse for being there.
 Raids Blamed on U. s.
 The recent attack of bandits on Glenn Springs can in no way be charged So the constitutionalist gov ernment but to the carelessness of the United States which did not eff fectively protect the frontier despite warnings of danger. It is also very doubtful whether the band was or ganlzed in Mexico, as there is good reason for belief that it was as- sembled on American territory.
 Says Obregon Never Yields.
 Tt is proven at Juarez that General Obregon, during his interview with Generals Scott and Funston at Juarez, informed them that the Mexican gov ernment would not permit the passage of American troops into Mexican ter ritory and that orders had been given the commanders Of all frontier posts to refuse consent to the passage of American troops.
 When General 0bregon showed Generals Funston and Scott copy of a paper published in Fl Paso, stating that American troops had entered Mexican territory as a result of the affair at Glenn Springs, General Funston replied:
 I have given no such orders, nor have l any information on the sub ject.
 "The department of state alleges that the declaration of Funston was made before the order was issued and after it had gone into effect. It is not true that Generals Scott and Funston during their conferences with ! General Obregon mentioned the pos sibility of new punitive expeditions across the frontier into the state of Tamaulipas on account of the activi-