The A B C Peace Commission would have arrived at Niagara Falls by the same road and achieved the same results. The meddling in Mexico would not have cost the American tax payers five million dollars. The most charitable description of the incident is that it was a hasty and costly blunder of the Navy Department. Let us put ourselves in the place of the Mexicans themselves. The touchiness of their national pride and their dignity is well known, as well as that their patriotism and love of country is as great as that of the greatest nation. Why criticise a characteristic of a weak nation which is considered a virtue in a strong one? Consider for instance the question as applied to the United States. If during the Civil War British marines had landed and occupied New Orleans for some reason or other, what would have happened? Would the northerners have protested against British intervention, or acclaimed it? Would not the northerners as well as the southerners have fought British occupation? If it is a question of the Monroe Doctrine, we beg to differ--the Monroe Doctrine, to reach its highest value as a political tenet, should work both ways,--in the interests of the United States as well as Central and South America. If the Monroe Doctrine is expedient, in the case of the United States, it should be acceptable to Latin America. Latin America rebels against a one-sided view of the Monroe Doctrine. When Villa gave out his interview on the occupation of Vera Cruz, he was evidently inspired by his American adviser and Mephisto. He was giving out the American side of the question,--not the Mexican. Unconsciously Villa acted as Porfirio Diaz or any other Cientificos would have done, if they had been in his place. Carranza represents the Mexican people, although Carranza has never been anything but a friend and admirer of the United States. It must be considered that no true friendship can exist without self-respect on Mexico’s side and mutual respect on both sides. The occupation of Vera Cruz has been a source of irritation for the Mexican and American, and a constant element of danger. It was a mistake which turned into a costly blunder. CHAPTER XXI PRESIDENT WILSON’S MEXICAN POLICY The attitude of President Wilson towards the Huerta régime was attacked not only in the European press but likewise in the American newspapers. The French, German, English and Spanish daily and weekly papers sneered at what they dubbed the moral policy of a puritan school teacher. The American papers were divided in their opinion; the Republican organs laughed at the reversal of their beloved “dollar diplomacy,” and many so-called Democratic papers attempted to uphold the blustering “big stick” policy. With the exception of the labor and socialistic press there was a great deal of doubt and misgivings expressed as to the outcome of the new diplomacy.