The Annual Register 1914 / A Review of Public Events at Home and Abroad for the Year 1914

by Anonymous

The President's announcement regarding the Panama tolls, however, had set up some opposition, primarily among the shipbuilding interests, the ultra-Protectionists and the Irish-Americans, but extending also to his own Democratic followers; and it and his advocacy of the arbitration treaties were attributed to a desire to establish better relations with the European Powers in the face of possible complications in Mexico, owing to the Benton case (p. [483]), and of danger from Japan. On March 5 he sent a Message to Congress strongly urging the repeal of the exemption. In his own judgment, he said, exemption was a mistaken economic policy from every point of view, and a plain breach of the Anglo-American Treaty of 1901; it was only in the United States that there was any doubt about the language of the Treaty, and the nation was "too big and powerful and self-respecting" to put a strained interpretation on its promises just because it had power enough to read them as it pleased. "The large thing to do is the only thing we can do—voluntary withdrawal from a position everywhere questioned and misunderstood." Were his request not granted, he would not know "how to deal with other matters of even greater delicacy and nearer consequence." This appeal was effective, and the Commerce Committee of the House favourably reported the Bill on March 6. It was, however, strongly opposed by a number of Democrats, among them Mr. Underwood, of Alabama, leader of the party in the House, and Senator O'Gorman, of Maryland; by the New York American and Mr. Hearst's other papers, and by the Irish-American Press, whose chronic suspicions of Great Britain were excited by the Ulster crisis. It was a sign of the disquiet aroused by the Bill that Mr. Page, the American Ambassador to Great Britain, was called to account by a resolution of the Senate for his speech at the London dinner of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, in which he was reported to have minimised the Monroe doctrine; but his explanation proved satisfactory.

While the House was busy with the Bill the Senate dealt with a proposed amendment to the Constitution, introducing women's suffrage on the lines of the famous 15th Amendment, and providing that the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. This was voted on March 19, by 35 to 34, and thus failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority. Amendments offered respectively by Senator Vardaman, of Mississippi, rescinding the franchise granted to negroes under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, and by Senator Williams, of Mississippi, excluding negro women, were rejected by 19 to 48 and 21 to 44. Apart from the stock arguments against the proposal it departed from the practice, hitherto broken only by the 15th Constitutional Amendment, of leaving suffrage regulation to the separate States.

Another issue which now became temporarily prominent was that of the restriction of the consumption of alcoholic liquors. Early in April, the Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Daniels, took the final step in enforcing teetotalism on the Navy by issuing an order prohibiting the introduction from July 1, 1914, of alcoholic liquor of any kind into any naval vessel, establishment, or station, and holding commanding officers responsible for infringements of the rule. The men had long been deprived of their grog, and this order, which was issued on the advice of the Surgeon-General, extended prohibition to the officers, who would now be unable to offer wine when entertaining guests from foreign fleets. But a resolution was also introduced into Congress demanding prohibition throughout the United States of the manufacture of intoxicants "for beverage," or of their sale, by means of an amendment to the Constitution (p. [467]), and this resolution was the subject of more memorials, for and against, than any other issue before Congress.

To the Panama Tolls Bill the House showed itself favourable by passing a special closure rule limiting debate on it to fifteen hours (March 1), and defeating by 200 to 179 an attempt to rescind this rule (March 27). The Bill, however, aroused much opposition among the Democratic majority, notably from Mr. Underwood (Alabama), the Democratic leader in the House, Speaker Clark, Mr. Wilson's most formidable rival in 1912 for the Presidential nomination, and Senator O'Gorman in the Senate, while Senator Lodge and some other Republicans strongly supported it. The President's attitude was regarded in some quarters as the result of a bargain designed to conciliate Great Britain in view of the Benton case (post, p. 483), and of British dissatisfaction with the results of his policy of watchful waiting in Mexico; a view expressly repudiated by the President himself and by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons (March 29, 30). President Wilson's foreign policy in general, including the Colombian treaty (signed April 8, post, p. 461), was adversely criticised, and Mr. Roosevelt's friends urged him to attack the Administration on his return from his exploration in Brazil. However, the Bill was finally passed by the House on April 1 by 247 votes to 162. It went to the Senate, and was first dealt with by the Committee on Interoceanic Canals. The temporary unpopularity of the Administration seemed to be indicated by the success of Mr. Underwood in obtaining the nomination for Senator in Alabama, and by the return at Congressional bye-elections of a Republican in New Jersey and an anti-repeal Democrat in Boston. The New Jersey contest had been described by the President as giving the people an opportunity to express themselves as to his policy.

But public attention was now diverted to a new crisis in Mexico. A portion of the Atlantic Fleet had concentrated, after its winter cruise, off the Mexican coast; several ships had then left to refit, or for other reasons, and four remained: the Florida and Utah at Vera Cruz, the Connecticut and Minnesota at Tampico. On April 10 a party of bluejackets landed at the latter port to obtain gasolene; they were arrested by a Federal (Huertist) colonel and marched through the streets, but were eventually released with an apology. Admiral Mayo, the United States commander, demanded that, by way of reparation, the Mexican authorities should hoist the American flag and give it a salute of twenty-one guns. President Huerta replied by a proposal that the United States and Mexican flags should be hoisted together and saluted reciprocally, gun for gun, and that an agreement to that effect should be recorded in a protocol. The United States Government regarded this course as a recognition of the Huerta Government, and were willing only that the American firing should follow the Mexican. A time-limit (6 P.M. on April 19) was eventually fixed for General Huerta's compliance. The United States had also to complain of the arrest of a naval mail-carrier at Vera Cruz. On April 20 President Wilson read a message to Congress asking it to approve the use of "the armed forces of the United States in such ways and to such extent as may be necessary to obtain from General Huerta and his adherents the full recognition of the rights and dignity of the United States." This, he said, would not mean war with the Mexican people, but only with General Huerta and his supporters, and the object of the United States would only be to restore to the Mexicans freedom to set up their own laws and Government.

A joint resolution was introduced into both Houses embodying the President's demand, declaring that he was justified in the employment of the armed forces of the United States to enforce the demand on Huerta for unequivocal amends to its Government. It was passed in the House by 337 to 37, but before it had passed the Senate Rear-Admiral Fletcher was ordered (April 21) to seize the Vera Cruz custom house, so as to prevent the landing of munitions for the Huertists, expected from Havre by the German steamer Ypiranga. He first demanded, through the United States Consul, the surrender of the town; on receiving a refusal he landed a body of marines, who were fired on by snipers, and were assisted by the guns of the United States warship Prairie. Shells were fired also from the Utah, and eventually most of the Mexicans retreated to the west of the town, the rest sniping the invaders from the housetops. Next day, April 22, the American ships shelled other buildings occupied by snipers, together with the Naval Academy and the artillery barracks, and practically took the town.

The American people, as a whole, rallied to the support of the President. There was some war feeling, though hardly among the politicians; the President was generally backed by the Press, the Churches, and even the labour unions, though the Industrial Workers of the World threatened a general strike in the event of war. The joint resolution was passed, in a modified form, substituted in the Senate and accepted by the House; but the insult to the flag was an occasion for trying to end the anarchy in Mexico. A force of some 4,000 was embarked at Galveston, troops were also sent to defend the Mexican border against raids, the United States warships Louisiana and Mississippi were despatched to Vera Cruz, and a Bill was passed by Congress authorising the mustering of the National Guard and the Regular Army. General Carranza, however, disappointed American hopes by declaring that the seizure of Vera Cruz was an affront to the Mexican people, and demanding its evacuation; and in view of his attitude, the United States Government hesitated to seize Tampico. British and German subjects meanwhile were warned to leave Mexico, and General Huerta facilitated their departure; and gave Mr. Nelson O'Shaughnessy, the American charge d'affaires, his passport.

A temporary lull in the warlike preparations was now set up by the offer of mediation made by Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, which was cordially welcomed by President Wilson and took shape in the Conference at Niagara Falls (post, p. 484). An armistice was arranged meanwhile, and General Funston took over Vera Cruz from the naval authorities on May 1. The public funeral of some of the marines and bluejackets killed in the fighting (May 11) afforded the President another opportunity to emphasise his purpose. Going with the procession from Battery Park, New York, to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, he delivered an address, paying a tribute to the patriotism of the slain, and adding: "We have gone down to Mexico to serve mankind if we can find a way. We do not want to fight the Mexicans; we want to serve them if we can." In a war of service, he proceeded, it was a proud thing to die; and it was as hard, he thought, to do one's duty when men were sneering at one as when under fire. "When they shoot at you they can only take your natural life. When they sneer at you they can wound your heart." But a man ought to regard his conscience and the conscience of mankind.

During this lull in Mexican affairs attention was again directed to domestic problems. The anti-Trust Bills (p. [453]; consolidated, with some omissions, into one measure) made some progress, and were supplemented by a Railway Capitalisation Bill, providing that railroad stock and bond issues should require authorisation by the Interstate Commerce Commission, that facts concerning the issue should be made public by that body, and that "interlocking directorates" should require its authorisation. In financial quarters this measure was regarded as far too drastic. But the railroad interests were somewhat reassured by the favourable decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission on an application by the Southern railroads regarding an increase of rates. Further increases were permitted by the same body later in the year.

The Naval Appropriation Bill, passed by the House on May 7, and subsequently by the Senate, authorised a building programme of two battleships, six destroyers, and eight submarines. A third battleship, it was eventually arranged, was to be provided out of the proceeds of the sale of the Mississippi and Idaho to Greece (p. [459]).