natural resources of coal and metals and oil and timber and waterpower
for the benefit of all the people, on the theory that these are the
property of the people. But if the natural resources of this country
belong to the people of the United States, those of Mexico belong to the
people of Mexico. It makes no difference how "lazy," ignorant, and
indifferent to their own interests the Mexicans at present may be. And
even more important in these liberal campaigns was the issue of the
conservation of human resources--men and women and children who are
forced by necessity to labour. These must be protected in health, given
economic freedom and a just reward for their toil. The American
democracy, committed to the principle of the conservation of domestic
natural and human resources, could not without detriment to itself
persist in a foreign policy that ignored them. For many years our own
government had permitted the squandering of these resources by
adventurous capitalists; and gradually, as we became a rich industrial
nation, these capitalists sought profitable investments for their
increasing surplus in foreign lands. Their manner of acquiring
"concessions" in Mexico was quite similar to that by which they had
seized because of the indifference and ignorance of our own people--our
own mines and timber lands which our government held in trust. Sometimes
these American "concessions" have been valid in law though the law itself
violated a democratic principle; more often corrupt officials winked at
violations of the law, enabling capitalists to absorb bogus claims.

The various rulers of Mexico sold to American and other foreign
capitalists the resources belonging to the people of their country, and
pocketed, with their followers, the proceeds of the sale. Their control
of the country rested upon force; the stability of the Diaz rule, for
instance, depended upon the "President's" ability to maintain his
dictatorship--a precarious guarantee to the titles he had given. Hence