Arizona republican., 1916-10-04
.LANE: 5 DEFENSE
 MEXICAN POLICY CONTROVERTED
(special to The Republican,

NEW YORK. Oct 3-Mr. Leigh, president and General manager of the Chicago Railway Equipment company, has sent to Chairman Wilcox of the republican national committee, a letter in which he takes up for consideration a number of statements in the recent article by Secretary Lane in defense of President Wilson's Mexican policy.
 For a good many years Mir Leigh has been in intimate touch with Mexican affairs and is in a position to receive a great deal of interesting and authen tic information as to what was really going on in that troubled country. His letter throws a strong light upon the Wilson policy with regard to Mexico and furnishes a new explanation of the reason for the deliberate adoption by MT. Wilson of the policy of refusing to protect American lives and property in Mexico.
 MT. Leigh quotes Secretary Lane as saying, President Wilson's Mexican policy has not been weak and vacillat- ing. It has been definite and consist ent firm and constructive" Com menting upon this, Mir Leigh says that Secretary Lane could only have meant that Mir Wilson's policy was firm and definite in it's determination to make Huerta go regardless of methods and consequences; regardless of human life. human suffering, human rights pr cost. Mir Lane, however made & mistake in using the word constructive He meant destructive. There is not any evidence of Mr Wilson's constructive work On the other hand. Mexico is a monument of his destructive work. He destroyed the existing government, but provided nothing 10 succeed it, and anarchy re- suited and still prevails
 Mir. Lane further says: The policy of the United States (meaning Mr. Will son's) is one Of hope and helpfulness. for those who have lost their lives or the accumulations of a lifetime. or for the millions of Mexican people de- prived of home, of property, of the right even to live in Mexico, and who are lit eralg dying by starvation. this is pure mockery.
 MT. Wilson's condemnation and abandonment of American citizens ir Mexico is unparalleled. It is not true that the Americans most interested 1T Mexico advocated or tried to force in- terve1tion. From the beginning it wa. what taey most feared and they were practically united in opposing armed in | tervention. Particularly they opposed the intervention by the administration in MeXico's internal affairs and poIi. tics and for this opposition they in. cured the enmity of President Wflsor and his advisors and have been re. peatedly classed by him as liars, as be. longing to the predatory class for whom i he consistently refused recognition ] sympathy or protection.
 1 The state department told thes. Americans in SO many words that theiI advice was not wanted They hat gone to Mexico to make money anc 1 had taken their chances: if they did no i like it they could come nome; the, could not look to the American govern ment to protect either them or theil properties
 Every American having an interes 1 in Mexico was an 'adventurer.' the jus i tice of which has it's counterpart in tn, ! equally unfair doctrine hat every suc cessful business man is a thief"
 If all Americans living or doing bus ness in a foreign country are to b, 1 classed as "adVeuturers" and withou 1 protection, what is the use of all on talk and effort looking to the extension of our foreign trade and interests? Tn 1 object lesson of the desertion of on own citizens and their interests i, Mexico has been more significantl
 noted by other countries than by on
 own; and such a policy will sureI nullify our efforts to extend our for
 (Continued on Page TWoe