Page:EB1922 - Volume 31.djvu/990

938 of the atrocity; later two Villa leaders, one of them said to be responsible for it, were executed.

The Pershing Expedition. On March 9 1916 Villa raided Columbus, N.M., killing 17 Americans. United States troops pursued him on a " hot trail," the pursuit becoming on the I5th a punitive expedition under Gen. Pershing. It was announced as an effort to help Mexico while scrupulously avoiding offence to her sovereignty. This attitude led to niceties about use of Mexi- can railways which doomed the expedition to failure. It roused fierce resentment in Mexico, being condemned by both Ameri- cans and Mexicans for diametrically opposite reasons. Carranza had given qualified and reluctant consent to it, but soon began to object, asking how far American troops would penetrate and how long they would remain. There were 12,000 American soldiers in Mexico and 18,000 on the border, the latter number soon being largely increased. The expedition was halted near Parral after a clash with Villa sympathizers. General Obregon, Minister of War, conferred with Gens. Scott and Funston at El Paso, urging withdrawal. The Carranza troops failed to aid in the attempt to capture the bandit leader. The American State Department on May 10 called upon Americans still in Mexico to leave the country. On May 22 Carranza protested sharply against the " invasion and violation of sovereignty." The attempt to take Villa was then ostensibly given up, for he had been wounded and was reported dead. Forces of the United States remained in Mexico only as security against disorders, and Car- ranza was so informed. On June 21 a troop of American cavalry, moving (against the expressed will of Carranza conveyed by Gen. Trevino on June 16) " in a direction other than northward," was attacked at Carrizal. A number of negro troopers were killed and about a score captured; the latter were released upon the sharp demand of the United States. In July the American forces were moving northward, and Carranza expressed readiness to discuss remedies for the situation, suggesting Hispanic-Ameri- can mediation. Upon Secretary Lansing's acceptance, a com- mission sat from Sept. 1916 until Jan. 15 191 7, adjourning with no result because Carranza denied American right to send troops into Mexico in pursuit of raiders. During the remainder of his rule frequent crossings of the border occurred, with only pro- forma objection. On Feb. 5 the withdrawal of the punitive expedition was complete. It had been in Mexico nearly n months, had engaged over 100,000 militia on the border in addi- tion to the invading troops, and had cost over $130,000,000.

The Constitution of 1917. In Nov. and Dec. of 1916 a con- vention, composed of members of the Carranza party only, met at Queretaro to amend the constitution. It was soon decided that a new instrument was needed, and one was drawn up after short deliberation. It is remarkable for its advanced position on nationalization of natural resources and its attempt to provide definite protection for the labouring classes. It abolishes the vice-presidency and makes the president ineligible to succeed himself. There are also provisions which leave the president complete discretion with regard to ejection of foreigners, and generous control of legislation. The provisions against property- owning by churches are sweeping, though religion is tolerated. The constitution was promulgated on Feb. 5. Carranza was elected president on March n 1917.

The Petroleum Controversy. Difficulties arose out of the policy of nationalization under executive decrees of Carranza in pursuance of the theory embodied in article 27 of the con- stitution, which restored petroleum to the nation as an inalien- able national resource. The legislation under Diaz had been thought to assure purchasers of superficial property in their possession of the subsoil products. By decree of Feb. 19 1918 Carranza imposed royalties and area taxes and graduated ground rents. A second decree of July 31, attempting to coerce oil operators into acceptance of the nationalization programme, was followed by others of Aug. 8 and 1 2 with the same purport. The Mexican juridical theory was that petroleum, being movable under the surface, is not the property of the owner of the super- ficies until he has brought it to the surface; hence exploitation, even on privately owned land, lies within control of the Govern-

ment. The foreign attitude, as shown by remonstrances against the decrees made through diplomatic channels beginning April 2 1918, is that any exaction of payments by the Mexican Govern- ment under colour of national ownership of petroleum denies the right of direct dominion which was acquired by the present owners, and must be resisted as confiscatory and subversive of the theory of private ownership and contractual obligation. There seemed to be little likelihood, up to Nov. 1921, of change in the Mexican determination that Article 27 should stand as written but should not be construed retroactively as had at first been intimated. The same firmness was shown by petroleum operators, who stood upon " acquired rights," acting through diplomatic channels. The Mexican conception of the status of subsoil products is that the Diaz legislation, giving title to sub- soil products with the superficies, was unconstitutional, reversing the basic law of the Spanish period and violating article 72 of the constitution of 1857. The oil interests distrust Congressional legislation to readjust their claims, believing that it can be too easily changed by succeeding Congresses. Hence they desire constitutional changes. Their appeals, pending during the clos- ing months of 1920 before the Mexican Supreme Court, made the claim that the presidential decrees limiting their tenure and production were unconstitutional. Further decrees by Carranza in Jan. 1920 made it possible for the oil companies to resume operations in which they had been stopped because they would not obey the earlier decrees; this action was without prejudice to the attitude of either party pending remedial legislation by Congress, which had not yet been enacted in Nov. 1921.

During 1918 the Carranza Government seemed to grow stronger. A food shortage was relieved, and attempts were made to reorganize the national finances. But the oil controversy weakened the power of Carranza abroad, and the shameless corruption of his Government alienated many friends. In that and the following year rebel activities were widespread, as were deeds of violence committed against both foreigners and Mexi- cans. The abduction for $150,000 ransom of William O. Jenkins, U.S. consular agent, at Puebla on Oct. 19 1919 aroused intense excitement, especially after his arrest by the Mexican authori- ties on charges of complicity in the deed. The U.S. Department of State demanded his release, which was refused. He was re- leased on bail against his will, but on Dec. 5 1920 all charges against him were dismissed. During the World War Mexico observed a " rigorous " neutrality, so described by Carranza in his message to Congress of April 15 1915, but this covered an official hostility to the Allied Powers fathered by German sym- pathies. Carranza on Feb. 13 1917 urged an embargo by Ameri- can nations on food and munitions to the belligerents, at a time when such action would have benefited Germany alone. The sentiment of the people in favour of the Allies was encouraged by French, Italian and American committees. The interception and publication by the United States of the infamous Zimmer- mann note, in which effort was made to align Japan and Mex- ico against the United States, occurred in March 1917. Mexico was proffered the reconquest of the American South-West for par- ticipation. Both Japan and Mexico denied knowledge of the note.

The Presidential Campaign. During the year 1919 the power of Carranza was at its highest, though he was never supported by any really important part of the population. Adequate justification for his recognition in 1915 would have developed had he speedily pacified disturbed areas, consolidated his power on a civil instead of a military basis, and shown a reasonable attitude toward the United States. But pacification was retarded by inactivity of the military, which persisted in treating banditry as opportunity for self-enrichment. The new army, created to support the new Government, caused the downfall of the chief under whose sign-manual it pillaged the country. This military situation caused non-fulfilment of the promises of the Carranza revolution. There were many other contributing causes. The new constitution was not in force even within the controlled area. Its labour provisions were never carried out. The eman- cipation of the peon class was nullified by disturbed conditions. The financial state of the country left much to be desired, though