U.S. Senate Testimony On the Cristero War April 29, 1920
By Martin Hill
LibertyFight.com
October 17, 2013


Note: This page is in construction and needs further editing and formatting. I will complete this when time permits. Meanwhile, the link to the actual book is a very extensive document, but interesting historical reading.

On Thursday, April 29, 1920, The United States Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations heard Testimony taken at Washington D.C. Among the many people who testified were Fr. Francis P. Joyce, a Captain and Chaplain in the United States Army, Monsignor Francis C. Kelley, President of the Catholic Church Extension Society of the United States of America, and Catholic nun Mother Elias De Sta Sacto, of the Discalced Carmelite Order.

Note that this testimony was taken on April 29, 1920, which proves that the countless abuses, murders and sacrileges enacted upon Catholics by the Mexican and United States Governments began much earlier than 1926 and extended much later than 1929, as is the period commonly referred to when discussing the 'Cristero War.'

You can find a free online digital version of the Senate testimony in book format here or by googling FRANCIS P JOYCE CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY.

See also: Historical details reemerge: U.S. Government supplied 10 Million rounds of ammo, 10,000 Enfield Rifles, military planes & tanks to Slaughter tens of thousands of Catholic Freedom Fighters (10/17/13)

When the U.S. government supplied ammo & military planes to kill thousands of Catholics

AudioSancto.org: The Cristeros: Will We See Another Catholic Persecution? [Free 30 minute MP3 download of a sermon by a Catholic priest. Must hear! AudioSancto.org is my favorite website.]

A note regarding the testimony of Fr. Joyce and his exchange with Mr. Silliman: On July 2, 1914, The Lewiston Daily Sun reported 'WILSON SELECTS SILLIMAN FOR IMPORTANT MISSION President to Send Him to Saltilli to Confer with Carranza in attempt to hasten the bringing about of peace in Mexico.'


2649 [These numbers refer to the page of the original book in print format.]

: THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1920. United States Senate, . Subcommittee on Foreign Relations, Washington,D.C. Testimony taken at Washington, D. C, April 29, 1920, by Francis J. Kearful, Esq., in pursuance of an order of the subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

TESTIMONY OF MOTHER ELIAS DE STA SACTO.

Mr. Kearful. You may give your name.

Mother Elias. My name is Mother Elias de Sta Sacto. My family name is Maria Thierry. The Spanish name in the order is Maria Elias del Santissimo Sacramento.

Mr. Kearful. What is your age?

Mother Elias. Forty-one.

Mr. Kearful. What is your nationality?

Mother Elias. Mexican.

Mr. Kearful. Are you a member of a religious order?

Mother Elias. Carmelite, Discalced Carmelite.

Mr. Kearful. Known in English as "Barefooted Carmelite? "

Mother Elias. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Were you connected with that order in Mexico?

Mother Eltas. Yes, sir. I was living in the City of Mexico From there we went to Queretaro.

Mr. Kearful. Were you there during the time of Porfirio Diaz?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. And later during the time of Madero?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir. I was in the convent when Madero came in. I was already 15 years in the convent.

Mr. Kearful. "Were you there at the time of the revolution of Carranza?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir; until six years ago we left.

Mr. Kearful. Did you have any trouble during the time of Porfirio Diaz or Madero?

Mother Elias. During the time of Porfirio Diaz we really did not have any, because his wife was a Catholic, and he did not care. He did not do anything against the Catholics.

Mr. Kearful. Were you molested during the Madero rule?

Mother Elias. No, sir; really not. He only passed through the place where we were. He passed through Queretaro, but he did not trouble us.

2650

Mr. Kearful. When did your first troubles begin ?

Mother Elias. I think in 1914, or 1913. We had to leave the convent, because we were sent away at that time for precaution. We had the sisters there, and I said, " Well, mother, it is better to leave the convent and go in small houses," and when we left the convent, in a few days after that they came and took possession of the convent.

Mr. Kearful. You mean the Carranza soldiers?

Mother Elias. The Carranza soldiers; yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. What do you know about the reported desecration of churches by the Carranza soldiers at that time?

Mother Elias. Well, at that time, I, myself, saw many things they did. We had to go from place to place, in caring for the nuns, to keep them from taking the nuns up in the hills with the soldiers. Of course, we did not want to give up the nuns. We used to move from place to place.

Mr. Kearful. You were hiding from the Carranza soldiers; moving from place to place, were you?

Mother Elias. Moving from place to place, because they used to come through the roof, instead of entering through the door. I remember I spent 22 nights taking care of the nuns.

Mr. Kearful. What have you seen about the desecration of the churches and the holy sacrament?

Mother Elias. Well, I have seen several things. In the first place when they took possession of a city, right away they took the keys of the churches, and they said the Government was the owner of the churches, and that the cities, and the holy communion would belong to the people. As soon as the Carranza soldiers entered the city they seized the keys of the churches, so the priests could not come from the houses and take care of the tabernacles and leave them empty. The soldiers took the ciboria and emptied the contents, which was the sacred Hosts, into the oats for the horses.

Mr. Kearful. Please proceed with your story.

Mother Elias. Many times the Catholic ladies used to come to me and say, " Mother, would you mind to go out with me ? They have emptied the ciboria to give to the horses." I did not believe it. Surely, I could not believe such a thing. But I went with them, and we tried to find out. So I saw them trying to destroy them.

Mr. Kearful. What was your purpose in entering?

Mother Elias. To save the blessed sacrament from the profanation, you know. Of course, they left them there for profanation; gave them to the horses. We find many cases like that. They would take the vestments and put on the horses' necks, and different profanations like that.

Mr. Kearful. You mean they used the sacred vestments for saddle blankets? Mother Llias. Yes; and shot the tabernacles in almost every church.

Mr. Kearful. The tabernacle is the receptacle in which the sacred Host is kept?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir. There was no place, no town, where there was not that kind of profanation, in every place, everywhere. Then I saw many times how they burned up the confessional. I was going

2651 down to Mexico, and we had to stop many times on the way, and I saw in a church where the blessed sacrament was exposed, and hundreds of men came and shot the ostensoria, and then disappeared.

Mr. Kearful. What did they do, if anything, with the chalices and other vessels?

Mother Elias. Several times widow women used to come to our door, because they knew we were nuns, and used to bring the chalices there to sell them. Many times they said, " Sister, will you buy a chalice?" I bought it sometimes for 10 cents, because there were places they used to drink from the chalices and the ciboria, and then threw them down in the street.

Mr. Kearful. You mean the soldiers stole the chalices from the churches and sold them to people for what they could get?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir ; and they would drink in them.

Mr. Kearful. Then they would be offered to you for sale by women on the street ?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir; in the house in Mexico we have some chalices that we bought at that time.

Mr. Kearful. According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church is it permissible for one other than a Catholic priest to touch the sacred Hosts?

Mother Elias. No sir.

Mr. Kearful. Is it considered the worst crime that can be com mitted by any person who violates those holy things ?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir ; it is sacrilege.

Mr. Kearful. Is that the way that the Mexican members of the Catholic Church feel about it?

Mother Elias. Well, you know soldiers are so ignorant. They do what they are told to do.

Mr. Kearful. I mean apart from the soldiers, the inhabitants of the towns and members of the churches; is that the way they feel about the sacredness of those things?

Mother Elias. Of course, everybody thinks that way.

Mr. Kearful. What do you know about the violation of the sisters, members of the order?

Mother Elias. When I was going down to Mexico to get my sisters — my younger sisters, Carmelite nuns — that I divided among their own families — when I was going down to Mexico to advise them how long I had to be absent from them — on the way I met with six or more of women who said they were sisters, and they said, "Have mercy on us." They said they were sisters. They said they spent two years up in the hills with the soldiers, and they did not know where to go; they could not find any convent or place to stay. They said they were about to become mothers. Of course, I did not know whether to believe it or not. I said to them, " Well, you had better go to some place, some maternity house, and pray to God and have more faith, because it is not your own fault." I did not see them any more. But afterward I went to the City of Mexico and saw a big crowd on the Calle de Berlin, in the Colonia Roma. When I saw so many people there I tried to find out what it was, and I saw imitation nuns, sisters, and priests, some of them wearing the sacred vestments. I never could believe they were real priests; but one of the ladies who was there said to me, " Don't you believe them when they say they are priests. They are just trying to make fun. That

@@@@@@ 2652 is the way they slander the priests, because they say the priests do nothing but drink and dance with the nuns."

Mr. Kearful. Is that true?

Mother Elias. I saw that.

Mr. Kearful. I mean is it true that the priests do those things?

Mother Elias. Indeed, no. You find in every place all kinds of people, but I can say that we have hundreds and thousands of good priests, very holy and very clever ones. This lady told me they were not good women, but they tried to dress in the sisters' dress to blame the priests.

Mr. Kearful. I understand the natural disinclination you would have to relate incidents of this kind, and I will ask you if you wrote a letter addressed to the archbishop of New Orleans, while you were in Habana, Cuba?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir ; I did.

Mr. Kearful. November 4, 1914?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Did you write that letter in English or in Spanish?

Mother Elias. I wrote it in Spanish.

Mr. Kearful. I have here what purports to be a translation in English, and I will read that portion of it and ask you whether the statements in that letter are correct.

Mother Elias. Yes, sir. Mr. Kearful (reading) : Since Francisco Madero declared wnr on I'orflrio Diaz until the present day we have not had a moment of peace. Following Madero's example many others have arisen, some worse than others, and have attacked on all sides, so that not a single State .in the Republic but is the victim of horrible outrages. The Catholic church is attacked by the revolutionaries. They have closed the temples and prohibited the sacraments to the extent of shooting the priest who dares to hear confession or to administer the sacraments. The confessionals and some images of the saints have been burned in the public squares to the accompaniment of bands of music and impious speeches. They have profaned the churches, entering them on horseback, smashing the images, treading the relics under foot, throwing the Hosts about the floor and even giving them to the horses to eat with the fodder. In some churches the Carrancistas themselves have pretended to say mass and have seated them selves to hear the confessions of a multitude of people.

Mother Elias. Yes, sir; the place I saw that was in the church of Santo Domingo, in the City of Mexico. I saw that myself.

Mr. Kearful (reading) : Dressed as priests they have heard the confessions of sick people and then In derision have revealed what they had heard in the confession.

Mother Elias. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful (reading) : All this I have seen with my own eyes. The most beautiful temple in the Republic, the Church of San Antonio in Aguascalientes, has been converted into the legislative hall.

Mother Elias. Yes. sir; that is true. Mr. Kearful (reading) : The Church of San Jose in Queretaro is now a public library.

Mother Elias. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful (reading) : Our great convent of the Carmelites in Queretaro they seized and ejected the Christian Brothers who bad a beautiful school and who lost over 50,000 pesos which they had sin-nt in alterations, the total loss being over 500,000

2653 pesos. The colleges of the Reverend Jesuit Fathers, and many others, have perished. The property of the church lias been seized and some of the ecclesiastical archives have been burned. ll the communities of nuns have been expelled from the entire Republic, being given but n half hour to leave and not allowed to take with them a change of clothes, and in many cases not even a breviary to pray. Many sisters have been taken to the barracks and police stations where their vows of chastity were in great danger. The furnishings of the Catholic schools and colleges have been stolen and in them have been planted the mixed lay schools with boys and girls together, from which there may be expected nothing but corruption and evil. Immorality has increased to such a degree that they have profaned not only virgins but have violated nuns, carrying them away by force where they now suffer horribly. To the great suffering of my soul I have seen in Mexico the sad and lamentable fate of many sisters who have been victims of the unbridled passions of the soldiers. I found many bewailing their misfortune and that were about to become mothers, some in their own homes, others in maternity hospitals. Others unable to flee from despair have surrendered to a life of evil anil, tilled with desperation and shame, have complained against God, declaring t lit1 1 He has abandoned them. I have seen many sisters of different orders, dressed in the latest style, showing themselves on the balconies, losing the little spirituality remaining to them, and singing and playing the piano all day, saying that It is dissimulation to hide the fact that they are nuns for fear that they be carried away by Carranzistns. or Zapatistas, or Villlstas, etc. Some priests, deserving of confidence, have told me that in a hospital near the (I will give you the name in confidence) there are 51) sisters that had been seized by the soldiers, of whom 45 are about to become mothers, although they have religious vocations and are bound by vows. In the in Mexico and In the Hospital de Jesus there are others in the same condition. The Carranzistas deny this, saying that they went with them voluntarily because they were held In the convents by force. In Celnyu and In Mexico I have seen others whom they have compelled by force to enlist in the Red Cross, and under this pretext holding them as slaves to serve them as though they were their own women, and if many look after the sick there are also others who have lost their chastity. In general, many young girls, after having been forced to live with them, have been thrown out, and many have been killed in the streets as though they were animals. Do you remember that you wrote that letter?

Mother Elias. I wrote all that.

Mr. Kearful. And it is all true ?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir. I wrote that when I was in Cuba. When I went back to Mexico they took me prisoner. They took me off of the train, and they said, "Are you the superior of the Carmelite Order? " Of course, I didn't deny it. I said, I don't know what you mean." I didn't deny it. I didn't say, " I am not," but I said, " I don't know what you mean.'" They said, "Are you a sister? How many sisters have you? " "I have no sister." Of course, I meant to say my own sister. I was dressed with a dress like a widow. I was taken in a dark room with a novice, and we promised to each other wo would not separate from one another. At 2 o'clock in the morning they called me and said, " Now, ladies, it is your last chance. Where is the money? " "What money," I said. They said, "The dowers of the sisters." I said, " I haven't any." " Well, how many sisters have you in your house?" "I haven't any." "Are you the superior of the convent? " " I am not." Because I resigned my office. I was not the superior at that time. They said, " Well, would you like something to save your life? " I said, "I would not do anything. You would make me happy if you kill me, because my husband died long ago." I meant our Lord Jesus Christ. "And sure I want to meet Him."

2654

Well, they didn't know what to do with me, because they could not scare me. We were left alone without eating anything, and the next day at 12 o'clock in the evening they called again, and said, " Now, ladies, this is your last chance." I said, " I hope it will be for good. Will you please finish now ? " He said, " Well, there are some questions." They asked me the same questions about the money and the sisters, and I repeated over what I said before. Then they called the soldiers around me with their guns and told us to knell down, and we knelt down. The novice was so scared, and I said, " Make up your mind to die. What is the use to get scared ? It is better to die now than to be like the other sisters," because we knew that some sisters were in the same place. The same questions were asked, and I gave the same answers. So the men shot like they would kill me. I was scared, but I didn't die. The next day they called me again, the same questions, and the same answers. Then an Indian came to me and said, " Little sister, do you want to be free ? " I said, " Why do you call me sister ? " He said, " You have a mark on your forehead like every sister has, and you can't deny that you are a sister." Well, I didn't say anything more. He said, " Do you Avant to be free to-day? " I said, " I don't believe you. I don't trust anybody." He said, " I will open the door for you if you will give me some money." I said, " I have no money to give you." I had in my clothing about $1,400 to bring the sisters, to pay the expense of the sisters to bring them to the United States. So he opened the door for me, and we left. Another Indian offered me a horse in order to run away. Well, I 'never did ride a horse, but I had to learn it that day. And then it started to rain so hard we could not see the way any more, but at last we reached the railroad, and we went into the City of Mexico about 3 o'clock in the morning. That was the last thing happened to me.

Mr. Kearful. That was before you went to Habana?

Mother Elias. After.

Mr. Kearful. After you wrote this letter in Habana?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir. Mr. Kearful,. You returned then to Mexico with money to bring the other sisters out?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Were you successful in getting them out ?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir ; I got all of them.

Mr. Kearful. Where are they now?

Mother Elias. In Grand Rapids, Mich. We have a house there. Mr. Kearful. They have not returned to Mexico?

Mother Elias. I had to send four about two months ago, because they got consumption in that place, because they came from a very hot place, and on account of the cold they got consumption, and wc sent four to Mexico. They are in a secure place.

Mr. Kearful. Are they in hiding?

Mother Elias. No, sir; they have a convent and a church. Right now they don't do anything. They are afraid. There is a funny thing that this morning I was telling to Monseigneur Kelley. The Indians are so simple and so ignorant. The people was on the outside would scream, and they would say, " Kill the clergy." And the Indians said to kill them. Then they would say, " Kill the priests." The Indians said, " No, no ; don't

@@ 2655: kill them." They are so ignorant, you know. Thoy said. " Kill the clergy," but the}' would not say, " Kill the priests." Air. Kearful. The idea being that they were in favor of the cry " Death to the clergy "?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. But not " Death to the priests "?

Mother Elias. No, sir; not to the priests.

Mr. Kearful. They did not know what ''clergy" means?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir; that is it. I remember when Francisco Madero was in the City of Mexico, in order to please the people he brought thousands of pictures of our Lady of Guadalupe, and made the soldiers wear them on their hat in front, so the people would believe in them. They were taught to persecute the rich. Once when I was passing by I saw one of them trying to break a frame of our Lady of Guadalupe, because it was gold. I said to him, " Man, what are you doing?" He put it on the floor and stepped on it. I said to him, "What are you doing?" He said, "Well, I am trying to kill this lady." I said, " Don't you have that lady on your hat?" He said, " Yes; but that one is poor and this one is rich. I am going to kill this one." They deceived the poor Indians, because they could not speak the Spanish language well. They speak the Mexican or Indian language. There is only a few words they can say. That is what they mean, to kill all the rich. That is why they do that way.

Mr. Kearful. That is what they are taught, to kill the rich ?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir; to kill and persecute the rich.

Mr. Kearful. Do you consider it safe for you to return to Mexico now ? Mother Elias. I have been to Mexico twice, localise I disguised my self in different ways, so I am not afraid.

Mr. Kearful. Would you feel secure to go there openly, without disguise?

Mother Elias. No, sir ; we can not. We have to disguise ourselves before crossing the river. I never take the habit. I put another dress on. That is the way we do. Six weeks ago I was coming from Mexico on the train with another dress on. Archbishop Orozco was on the train, and there was about 3,000 people clapping their hands and saying, " Viva Archbishop," and the Carranzistas were on the train. They didn't pay any attention. They couldn't do anything with the people. The people mean to be Catholic. They could not do anything. My fear is this, that when the priests and archbishops are back in their places, they will have the houses burned again, and they will take them prisoner again and sell them as they used to do, because they many times sold them for a hundred thousand pesos.

Mr. Kearful. What do you mean bv their being sold?

Mother Elias. They took them prisoner and would offer to de liver them for many thousand pesos.

Mr. Kearful. You mean they were holding the priests for ransom?

Mother Elias. Yes, sir; for many thousand pesos in order to gain their release.

Mr. Kearful. Do you think that after the nuns and sisters have reestablished themselves there that they are likely to have the «ame troubles that they had before? 4700— 20— vol 2 54

2656:

Mother Elias. I am sure they will have them again, because they have no schools now, only the public schools, and the revolution has been going on 10 years. What will become of the boys who were then 10 years old, who now are men of 20 years? They will get worse and worse. That is what I think.

Mr. Kearful. Will you please explain more fully how the priests were held and money was extracted from them, and how the money was secured?

Mother Elias. I was in Zacatecas, when I came in contact with a lady who was my friend, and was a sister of one of the priests. She said, " What do you think? My brother is in prison to-day, and he is an old man of 65 years, and he has got to jro to-day and beg for 100,000 pesos, otherwise he will be killed. He will be killed this afternoon, together with 14 other priests." They were sent out to beg, and about 5 o'clock they came back with 20,000. The men said, " It is not enough. Go and beg again." They had to go and beg again. They came back about 8 o'clock with some more money. That was not enough. They told them to go and beg again. The rest I do not know anything about, because I had to take my train to leave, but I heard that much. Mr. Keakful. I believe that is all I wish to ask you. I am very much obliged to you. AFTER RECESS. At the expiration of the recess the following further proceedings were had: TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS P. JOYCE. (The witness was duly sworn by

Mr. Kearful.)

Mr. Kearful. You may state your name.

Father Joyce. Francis P. Joyce.

Mr. Kearful. And your occupation?

Father Joyce. Chaplain, United States Army.

Mr. Kearful. To what church do you belong?

Father Joyce. The Catholic Church, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Were yovi chaplain in the Army with the American troops when they landed at Vera Cruz in 1914?

Father Joyce. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Did you have occasion at that time to learn any thing about the treatment accorded the priests and nuns and sisters in Mexico by the Carranza army?

Father Joyce. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Will you please relate that?

Father Joyce. Sir. at Vera Cruz, during the summer of 1914 and immediately after the abdication of Huerta, there were between 600 and 700 sisters, refugees, in Vera Cruz, some clothed in the habit of the religious order, others in various disguises. I sent cable grams to the cardinals, to the board of archbishops, to the Federa tion of Catholic Societies, to the Church Extension Society, and to Mr. Flaherty, of the Knights of Columbus, asking that aid and transportation be furnished to religious people who were then refu gees in Vera Cruz. Besides the sisters there were many priests who

@@@@@ 2657: were refugees also. These men were working in various places. Some were waiting upon tables at restaurants, others were work ing on the docks, all trying to earn enough money to get out of the country. There were also seven bishops and archbishops in Vera Cruz at that time. When the church authorities in the United States received my telegram. I understood that they wired Mr. Tumulty, Secretary to the President, to know if mv reports about the condition of these peo ple were true, and that Mr. Tumulty informed them that there was nothing on record" in the State Department that such a condition as I reported existed. Father Kelley, of the Church Extension So ciety, now monseigneur, wired me to prove my reports by getting affidavits from these women relative to church persecutions inaugu rated by Carranza and Pancho Villa. Many of these women, although they had been outraged, were timid to sign their names to any history of any excesses committed by the revolutionists. There were no notaries public who could take the affidavits, but through the assistance of a military judge advocate, Lieut. Prosser, still in the service, we obtained affidavits from a great number 01 these religious women, and I sent them to Father Kelley, of the Church Extension Society, who published a good many of them, I afterwards learned. Father Kelley was the only one who gave any assistance finan cially to these people in Vera Cruz, when he sent down $800. Mr. Flaherty cabled me that my reports were not believed, and, if true, to give name and history of every priest, sister, and bishop refugee in Vera Cruz. I wired back that the American forces were about to leave Vera Cruz; that many of these people had been scattered and lost track of; that I was not a census taker; that it was too late to do anything. During this time I called on Mr. Silliman, personal representa tive of President. Wilson to Carranza. I visited him in the office of Consul Canada, and asked that he take it up with the State Depart ment and obtain a boat to ship those people out of the country. He said, " On what grounds?" I said to him, " Tf not on the grounds of religion, at least on the ground of humanity. These are women. The priests are men and will have to make shift for themselves." He then stood up and said, "It is generally admitted by everybody that the worst thing in Mexico, next to prostitution, is the Catholic Church, and both must go." To prevent a fight T was hustled out of the consul's office, and reprimanded in a military way for some words I had with Mr. Silliman. During this time the poor regular soldiers organized a Holy Name. Society whose object was through that organization to secure con tributions from the forces then occuping Vera Cruz on each suc cessive pay day to help defray expenses for shipping out as many sisters as possible. Previous to the departure of the American troops the family of Senora Saturni, on the Calle Cincode Mayo, offered gold to an American Army officer to marry her beautiful daughter, in the hope that as the wife of an American officer she could secure safe conduct out of Vera Cruz.

Mr. Kearful. Was that daughter one of the women who had been outraged? END2657

Father Joyce. No, sir. She was said to be the most beautiful woman in the State of Vera Cruz. When that marriage did not materialize, I afterwards learned that when Candido Aguilar camu into Vera Cruz as military governor he kidnapped this girl, and afterwards married the daughter of Gen. Carranza.

Mr. Kearful. Did Silliman take any steps to give any assistance to these refugees? Father Jotce. No, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Did he make any representations to the Washing ton Government in that respect?

Father Joyce. Not that I know of, sir. Consul Canada tried to help them, I understood at that time, but was unable to do much.

Mr. Kearful. You say there were refugees in Vera Cruz. What was the reason for their taking refuge at that particular place i

Father Joyce. Because the Americans were, there.

Mr. Kearful. Where did these refugees come from ?

Father Joyce. From various parts of Mexico.

Mr. Kearful. What story did they relate as to the treatment they had received from the Carranza Government?

Father Joyce. That some of them had become mothers ; that others were about to become mathers; that many of them were diseased.

Mr. Kearful. From your observation of them at that time you believe that those statements were true?

Father Joyce. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. You have no doubt of it?

Father Joyce. No, sir.

Mr. Kearful. What was the attitude of Gen. Funston and his staff with respect to these refugees?

Father Joyce. Sympathetic, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Did he do anything to help you?

Father Joyce. No, sir. He told me that he was unable to get any permission from the State Department to secure a boat.

Mr. Kearful. It has been stated that Gen. Funston deliberately delayed his departure from Vera Cruz in order that some of these refugees might have an opportunity to get away. Do you know whether that is true or not?

Father Joyce. I do not, sir. The big mistake was made when our Government failed to recognize Huerta, who was the hope of Mexico.

Mr. Kearful. What knowledge have you of Mexico, besides that which you gained as chaplain at Vera Cruz ?

Father Joyce. I was with the Pershing expedition, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Do you know Mexico in any way apart from those two experiences?

Father Joyce. Yes, sir ; previous to that, but that was a long time ago.

Mr. Kearful. That was in the time of Porfirio Diaz, was it?

Father Joyce. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. What were you doing in Mexico then?

Father Joyce. I was sort of prospecting, sir.

Mr. Kearful. For minerals?

Father Joyce. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. About what time was that; what year or years?

Father Joyce. In 1904.

Mr. Kearful. What were the conditions of the country as to security of life and property and travel throughout the country at that time?

Father Joyce. At that time it was all right, the little I saw of it-

Mr. Kearful. That was it later?

Father Joyce. As a man in vaudeville lately said, it turned out to be no longer a country, but a sort of shooting gallery.

Mr. Kearful. Why did you say the great mistake was made when this Government failed to recognize Gen. Huerta?

Father Joyce. Because I knew Huerta and was his confessor. He was, I believe, the ablest soldier Mexico ever produced. He was scholarly, was an engineer, and for years had been in the mining- contracting business. He was a Catholic in a Catholic country, and a man I learned to esteem highly. His wife was my idea of what the Madonna might be like. She was a daily communicant, and, after his death suffered intensely, and is now, I understand, in poverty and ill health in Habana. Mr. Keakful. Many statements have been made in this country attacking the moral character of Huerta. What can you say about that?

Father Joyce. As far as I know, sir, like the charge that he killed Madero, much is untrue.

Mr. Kearful. What do you think about the charge that he killed Madero ?

Father Joyce. I think Huerta was innocent of the charge.

Mr. Kearful. Do you remember the circumstance of Huerta's re turn to this country from Spain?

Father Joyce. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Did you meet him here after his return?

Father Joyce. Yes, sir. He was put in arrest in El Paso.

Mr. Kearful. What kind of treatment did he receive from the American authorities on that occasion?

Father Joyce. Very discourteous treatment, to say the least. He was thrown into the common jail? with negroes, drunks, and dis orderly people, and left there, I think, over five days, at El Paso.

Mr. Kearful. What was the charge against him?

Father Joyce. As far as I could understand, he was charged with an attempted breach of neutrality.

Mr. Kearful. What was done with him afterwards?

Father Joyce. He was afterwarde put under $38,000 bond, which his wife furnished, a cash bond, and was sent out under guard of five civilian secret-service men to Fort Bliss. His prison there was cold and he became sick. I then wired the Department of Justice that he had a bad cold and was a pretty sick man, and I feared he would get pneumonia and die where he was. I asked that he be permitted to go down town and have the care of his family at the home which his wife had rented for herself and children on Stanton Street. That permission was granted. A few nights later Huerta sent for me and told me that a Mr. Dubose, whose office was in the Federal building, had visited him and said that he wanted $5,000 or he would have Huerta returned to the prison at Fort Bliss.

Mr. Kearful. Who was Dubose ?

Father Joyce. Dubose, I think, was chief of the civilian secret service in that district at that time.

Mr. Kearful. That secret service was under the Department of Justice, was it?

Father Joyce. I think so. I told Huerta that Dubose could not do that, and Huerta said, " I don't want to be sent back to that place, but I haven't $5,000 to give him."

Mr. Kearful. You did not believe that Dubose woidd do such a thing?

Father Joyce. No, sir. The next night Huerta sent for me again and said Dubose had again sent word that his price had been raised to $8,000, and if the money was not handed him the following^ day by 5 o'clock, he would send Huerta back to the prison at Fort Bliss. Again I told Huerta they were just teasing him, and was surprised the next evening to learn that Huerta had been sent back to Fort Bliss. I visited him there and told one of his guards, a civilian secret service man, to call up Dubose and have Huerta moved back to his home, where his wife could give him some care, otherwise I would endeavor to bring up charges for extortion against Dubose. Huerta was immediately returned to his home. Some nights later his wife sent for me and said that she believed he was dying. She said the previous night at a late hour a man who spoke excellent Spanish and had whiskers, who said he was a physi cian and a great admirer of Huerta, visited him, examined him, and told him unless he underwent an operation immediately he would be dead in 24 hours. He alarmed Mrs. Huerta so much that she con sented with Huerta to the operation. He said he had no anes thetic, and made some abdominal incisions in Huerta without ad ministering any anesthetics. I went back to Fort Bliss and asked two medical officers, Maj. Mc Andrew and Dr. Norman, to come with me to see Huerta. That was the night after the operation. They examined him and said that the operation had been unnecessary: that if it had been sewed up immediately afterward, he would have lived, but now complications had set in and they gave him two days to live.

Mr. Kearful. How long did he live?

Father Joyce. About three days after the operation, sir. The last he said was. " Help my wife to recover our properties in Mexico, and if she wins, remember that everything is for the poor." The bond that he was under has been lost to her.

Mr. Kearful. What was the amount of that?

Father Joyce. Of the $38,000% which she deposited Lee, Thoma- son & McGrady, a firm of attorneys in El Paso, pretended that $7,500 of it was theirs ; Hosea Hattner, now in New York City, whom the banks considered a bona fide agent of the widow, secured $17,400; and the remainder, around $13,000, was lost in favor of the Govern ment of the United States.

Mr. Kearful. What became of Mrs. Huerta ?

Father Joyce. She, with the children, is in Havana, destitute, ill, and broken hearted. She thinks that they have been maliciously persecuted, unjustly.

Mr. Kearful. Do you think she is correct in that ?

Father Joyce. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Who do you think is responsible for it ? END2660

@@@

Father Joyce. As a soldier, sir, I don't know. Mr. Keakful. Did you meet John Lind in Vera Cruz ?

Father Joyce. I may have met him. I met so many there, I can not remember.

Mr. Kearful. Did you learn the opinion of people in Vera Cruz as to what the attitude of John Lind was toward the Catholic Church in Mexico?

Father Joyce. The story was, sir, that John Lind said, " The thing wrong with Mexico is the Catholic Church, and they should keep the Catholic schools and the Catholic churches closed for a generation and they will be rid of the church in Mexico."

Mr. Kearful. Did you have any conversation directly with John Lind, that you remember?

Father Joyce. I have forgotten, sir. It has been a long time ago.

Mr. Kearful. What do you think personally about the charge that the Catholic Church is responsible for the ills of Mexico?

Father Joyce. Nearly 70 years ago the Catholic Church was de spoiled by Juarez in various parts of Mexico. Sisters were for bidden to wear their garb in public. It was forbidden to hold Catholic services in the open air. It was likewise forbidden for priests to wear any sort of religious garb in public. The mysterious hatred that crucified Christ, that persecuted the martyrs in the arena, that same hatred followed and still follows the Catholic Church in Mexico.

Mr. Kearful. You know something about the so-called reform laws instituted under the rule of Juarez, do you?

Father Joyce. No, sir; not much.

Mr. Kearful. What is your understanding in regard to the ex tent of the political influence that has been exerted by the church since the time of Juarez?

Father Joyce. They have a Catholic party in Mexico, but I understood that it was not powerful. I don't know much about it.

Mr. Kearful. Do you think that the priests and other dignitaries of the church in Mexico have oppressed and mistreated the Mexi can peons?

Father Joyce. I do not think so. Not to my knowledge. Rather, it was the one influence for good left in Mexico.

Mr. Kearful. Another question about those refugees. Did they finally escape from Mexico?

Father Joyce. When the Americans evacuated Vera Cruz, I un derstood that more than 400 of the sisters were left behind. After ward I was told that Carranza and Villa's army tried to have one prostitute to every four soldiers, and that many of these sisters were impressed as camp followers for Carranza's army.

Mr. Kearful. Do you know Mother Elias, who testified yester day? Did you meet her?

Father Joyce. I don't remember, sir. I met a good many. Mr. Kearful. What was the necessity to solicit funds for the benefit of these people?

Father Joyce. To feed them and to pay their expenses on the ship. But the Catholic Church authorities failed to give the neces sary assistance when it was most needed. Outside of $800 that Father Kelley sent, we received no other money, and there was no END2661

@@@ fund in the Catholic Church on which we could draw to pay these expenses.

Mr. Kearful. The Catholic Church in Mexico has been reputed to be quite wealth}'. Did they not have enough money for those purposes ?

Father Joyce. It was not wealthy. I had to pay out of my own pocket transportation for the Bishop of Sinaloa and his two elderly sisters. The church was poor, I understood, ever since the days of Juarez. Bishop Valdespino, of Aguascalientes, was destitute in Vera Cruz, without a cent in his pocket. The Bishop of San Luis Potosi, whom I assisted to Vera Cruz, got to Habana, and was robbed there of the few pesos in his possession. Had the Knights of Columbus been organized at that time, as they now are, in wel fare work, they might have succeeded in accomplishing much that was left undone at that time.

Mr. Kearful. You had your ordinary duties as chaplain to per form yourself at that time?

Father Joyce. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. You could not devote your time exclusively to that work ?

Father Joyce. I did all I could, sir. We obtained rations from the Ked Cross for many of the sisters, took up collections from the soldiers, and bought supplies for them. In one adobe building we had 30 Army cots furnished by Gen. Funston, but there were more refugees there than we could get cots to supply, and they had to take turns sleeping on the same cot.

Mr. Kearful. What were the accounts given by these refugees as to the desecration of churches and the use of sacred things in churches by the Carranza soldiers ?

Father Joyce. That Carranza at his banquet board supplied each guest with a chalice for a wine cup; that vestments were used as saddlecloths by the revolutionists ; that churches were used for dance halls and barracks; that statues were taken down from their high places and nude women put there; that tabernacles were shot open and the sacred Hosts trampled upon; and that the furnishings of gold and silver and jewelry were stolen; that men were shot for no other reason than that they were Catholics; that it was commonly reported at the time that Huerta was told if he would renounce his Catholic faith his government would be unmolested.

Mr. Kearful. When you were in Vera Cruz do you remember in particular a certain train coming into Vera Cruz loaded with sisters and what happened to the train ?

Father Joyce. Many times sisters were taken off the trains and never reached Vera Cruz. I remember receiving a telegram from the mother superior of the Good Shepherd Sisters, at St. Louis, ask ing me to meet and safely conduct eight American sisters of the Good Shepherd Order through Vera Cruz. I met the train frequently, but the sisters never arrived.

Mr. Kearful. You say these were American sisters ?

Father Joyce. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Citizens of the United States?

Father Joyce. I suppose they were, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Were there among the refugees that went through Vera Cruz any Americans?

@@

Father Joyce. A good many Americans, mining men, oil men.

Mr. Kearful. I mean among the priests and sisters ?

Father Joyce. Oh, were there many Americans?

Mr. Kearful. Were there any Americans ?

Father Joyce. Oh, I don't remember, sir.

Mr. Kearful. They appeared to you to be Mexicans, as a rule, did they?

Father Joyce. A good many of them spoke English. I don't know what nationality they were. I suppose they were various nationali ties.

Mr. Kearful. Is there anything that occurs to you along the line of my questions that have been asked that you would care to state ?

Father Joyce. No, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Then I thank you. (Whereupon, at 3.45 p. m., the committee adjourned, to meet again on Saturday, May 1, 1920, at 10 o'clock a. m.) END2663

@@@@ SATTXBDAY, MAY 1, 1920. United States Senate, Subcommittee on Foreign Relations, Washington, D. C. Testimony taken at Washington, D. C, May 1, 1920, by Francis J. Kearful, Esq., in pursuance of an order of the subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. TESTIMONY OF FBANCTS C. KELLEY. (The witness was duly sworn by

Mr. Kearful.)

Mr. Kearful. Please state your name. Monsignor Kellet. Francis C. Kelley.

Mr. Kearful. And your place of residence?

Monsignor Kelley. Wilmette, 111.

Mr. Kearful. Please give your office address.

Monsignor Kelley. One hundred and eighty North Wabash Ave nue. Chicago.

Mr. Kearful. What is your profession?

Monsignor Kelley. Clergyman and journalist.

Mr. Kearful. To what church do you belong?

Monsignor Kelley. Catholic.

Mr. Kearful. What is your official position with the Catholic Church?

Monsignor Kelley. President of the Catholic Church Extension Society of the United States of America.

Mr. Kearful. What title do you have ?

Monsignor Kelley. Prothonotary Apostolic to His Holiness. The common title is monsignor.

Mr. Kearful. What is and has been your connection with the Mexican situation? Monsignor Kellky. My first connection with the Mexican situation was in relief work for the exiled clergy, who began to come out of Mexico a short time after the beginning of the Carranza revolution. I started to collect a fund for the purpose of helping these exiles, and succeeded in getting together about $75,000 collected from all parts of the United States. That money was used to clothe and feed these exiles, send them to their destination in the United States, and take out a number of the seminarians, who were studying for the priest hood, from the seminaries that had been closed or destroyed; and later for establishing a theological seminary in the United States, END2665 /////////////// where they might continue their education. That seminary was con tinued for about three years. We staffed it by using the exiled pro fessors who were driven out of the religious colleges and schools of Mexico. Air. Kearful. Did you give the date of the beginning of these activities of yours?

Monsignor Kelley. No ; because it is a long time ago and I do not know the exact date. I said about the time of the beginning of the Carranza revolution.

Mr. Kearful. Very well.

Monsignor Kelley. About 100 of these students were received into the seminary, which was located at Castroville, Tex., and as a con sequence about 100 hundred Mexican clergymen to-day are working in Mexico who have graduated from that American institution. I then took up the work of trying to inform the American people of the truth about church conditions in Mexico, and acted also in some matters as the representative of the exiled Mexican bishops. The first part of my work brought me into contact with public men in an effort to have them understand that all the church in Mexico wanted was liberty of consience as it exists in the United States, the general feeling being that the church in Mexico wanted special concessions; there being also a general idea that Mexico had had a union of church and state. That about covers the field.

Mr. Kearful. What did you find to be the condition of those you referred to as the refugee clergy during the Carranza revolution?

Monsignor Kelley. Practically every one of these priests and religious people came into the United States quite penniless, some of them in rags and tatters. The archbishop of one of the greatest sees in America, which happened to be in Mexico, came across the northern desert disguised and dressed as a peon. Some of the bishops came in wearing mustaches, which is a perfect disguise for a bishop. Some of them were in such a condition that when they arrived in San Antonio their own schoolmates and college friends were unable to recognize them. Two archbishops who were very close friends were talking to one another quite a while in San Antonio before they knew one another, they were in such a miserable condition. In spite of the reports that these men were rich I had to go to a wholesale store in San Antonio, and later to a wholesale establish ment in Habana, and buy clothing, complete outfits for a great number of them. In fact, most of the money in the beginning was spent for clothing. Later on we arranged so that each of the exiled priests would have enough money to pay his board, with a few dollars a month extra for his little wants, and while they were here they depended absolutely on the money that was given to them regularly from Chicago.

Mr. Kearful. Did you make an investigation of the reasons why they were exiled from Mexico, and if so. what was the result of it?

Monsignor Kelley. Many of these men were driven out of Mexico by force. Some of them had come out voluntarily, but they had left Mexico, not because they wanted to leave, or in order to avoid persecution, but simply because they were being used to extort money from the people. For example, a certain archbishop — in ////////////// deed, two or three archbishops— were sent from door to door, with soldiers beside them, to tell the people that they were going to be «xecuted unless they raised a very great amount of money. When the revolutionary authorities believed they had raised all they possibly could, they were sent out of that town and word was dis patched to the next large place to look out for them. On arriving at that place they would be rearrested, again lined a large amount of money, and sent out with soldiers to collect. That was a common practice, and after it had been done two or three times the arch bishops decided to leave, becau.se they did not want the poor people robbed out of pity for their chief pastors and to save their lives.

Mr. Kearful. 'What did you learn al>out the persecution of the sisters and nuns in Mexico?

Monsignor Kelley. There were very few nuns who came to the United States. I never knew the reason for that until I heard Capt. Joyce's testimony yesterday, though I suspected that they were scat tered around Mexico. A few communities like that of the Carmelite Sisters, of which Mother Elias was the head, came to the United States and received some help from us. Two or three communities settled down and opened schools or other institutions in the south west. The Carmelites came north, and though they were absolutely 6enniless, Mother Elias succeeded in securing a foundation at Grand -apids, Mich., where a house was given through the charity of the • bishop and priests. Her community has prospered and she has now a number of American sisters and is opening a new house in Buffalo. Most of the other sisters, I understand, are teaching.

Mr. Kearful. What did you learn in reference to the financial con dition of the refugees who passed through Vera Cruz, and the efforts of Capt. Joyce to assist them '(

Monsignor Kelley. When I got word from Capt. Joyce of the number of priests and sisters at Vera Cruz. I started from Galveston to go there, to get a boat for that part of Mexico, but I received a telegram, I think from Capt. Joyce himself, telling me that the refugees were leaving and that I would probably find them in Ha- bana. I went to Habana and found those who came out of Yucatan, and who had been expelled by Gen. Salvador Alvarado, who closed, I understand, every church in Yucatan. The refugees from Vera Cruz, however, went for the most part to the United States. I began to meet them in New Orleans on my return from Habana. The first one T met was the bishop of Cam- peche. He was penniless, and I gave him assistance right on the street. I met a number after that. There were over 100 of these refugees, if my memory serves me right, and I do not think there was an average of $3 apiece among them. Mr. Kearfui,. Did vou learn what assistance they received in Vera Cruz?

Monsignor Kelley. At Vera Cruz Capt. Joyce interested himself in them. I inquired about his work there, and was informed that he had spent all the money he had and had gone into debt to take care especially of the poor nuns. I understood that the American Army officers gave them cots, that some of the clergy slept on the balcony of some public building. T also learned that Gen. Funston was par ticularly kind. But everything depended upon Capt. Joyce. Tn ////////////// fact, the money which he mentioned my having contributed was really returning what he himself had either spent or had borrowed. Although we were organized for Mexican relief at that time, we knew nothing about conditions at Vera Cruz until we got the telegrams from Capt. Joyce, and as he was the only American priest on the ground, it was up to him to do the best he could, which he certainly did. Mr. Kearfttl. What do you know about the vicissitudes of Mother Elias, who testified the other day, and as to her financial condition and as to those under her charge.

Monsignor Kelley. I met Mother Elias in Habana. She told me the same story that she told under oath the day before yesterday to this committee. She was in a Carmelite convent in Habana, where the sisters gave her shelter. She had one companion with her. I do not know if there were any others, but I do not think there were The sisters of her community in Mexico were scattered. She wanted to go back to get them. I remember trying to dissuade her from making the attempt, but it was quite useless. She had no money and she would be arrested and expelled on sight in Mexico. Mr. Keakful. If recognized?

Monsignor Kelley. If recognized; yes. I did not know that she had actually been arrested until I heard her testimony here. It is true that I gave her the money to go back to get her sisters. I did so with some misgivings, because I feared for herself if she returned to Mexico, but at the same time I felt it my duty to rescue the sisters if I coidd. Mother Elias was a very brave woman, and her successful foundations in the United States are very well deserved. Mr. Kearfttl. Does she or her institutions have any endowment?

Monsignor Kelley. No endowment of any kind.

Mr. Kearful. Have they any money on deposit or property that they can resort to?

Monsignor Kelley. No ; not a cent. Mr. Kearfttl. Did they have in Mexico?

Monsignor Kelley. Whatever they had in Mexico, of course, was taken from them. Religious orders in Mexico are not supposed to have property. In fact, religious orders are not supposed to exist, so that the Carmelites can have no property in Mexico. I understand that Mother Elias has a house rented there for four of her sisters who coidd not stand the rigors of the northern climate and became con sumptive. She sent them back to Mexico, and as a consequence of that and other sicknesses she is about $:).000 in debt.

Mr. Kearful. Are you prepared to give the committee the benefit of your investigation and knowledge with reference to the basic causes of the troubles in Mexico?

Monsignor Kelley. My judgment as to the basic causes of the Mexican trouble will perhaps be a surprise to you. Most people claim that the cause of revolution in Mexico is either social or economic. It is my judgment, based on a study of Mexican history and the information that I have received from learned men from Mexico, that the seat of Mexico's difficulty is anticlericalism, which has resulted in a denial to the people of liberty of conscience. There has been no liberty of conscience in Mexico since the constitution of ////////////// 1857, and particularly the laws of reform. For the constitution, I understand Juarez was responsible; for the laws of reform, Lerdo. The reason that I believe anticlericalism is at the root of Mexico's difficulties is because of the dissatisfaction of the people, who have been deprived of their religious rights. Mexico is only a democracy and a republic in name. The only honest election I ever heard of in Mexico was the one at which Francisco Madero was the successful candidate for the presidency, and even in that election the Catholic candidate for vice president was arbitrarily set aside, although he had received a large majority of the votes. Now, in a democracy religious liberty is a necessity. In a letter written to me by Mr. Bryan, on March 20, 1915, on the Mexican situation, a letter which I was told was really dictated, if not writ ten, by the President himself, I find these words: Above and beyond all, the full flower of democracy lies religious freedom, the principle which the builders of our own republic made the crown of the whole structure. To this freedom political freedom has seemed, at many of the most important crises of history, to be only the handmaiden and servant." That is the American view. The constitution of 1857 and the laws of reform, diametrically opposed religious liberty, suppressing re ligious institutions, closing religious schools, taking away even the liberty of men and women to wear a religious dress, forbidding all religious services of every kind outside of churches. It descended to such pettiness that even bishops have been arrested for laying a cor nerstone, and a Protestant American railroad man in Monterrey told me that a bishop there was arrested by Gov. Reyes for presiding at a Christmas tree festival for poor children which the American had arranged at his own expense. It appears that the bishop had worn his house cassock and his sectoral cross. It would take a long time to go into the consequences of this, but as a detail I may mention that it would be against the constitution of 1857 and the laws of re form to hold religious services in graveyards, and therefore, uncon stitutional for a clergyman of any denomination to wear any distinct garb, or even in his street clothes, to cany out a burial service. Of course, the Salvation Army would have no chance whatever for a street service in Mexico, if the constitution were inforced. Clergy men are even barred from all public institutions, thus depriving in mates of hospitals, asylums, barracks, and other such places, of the consolation of religion when sick or dying. Onlj' people of wealth and influence could procure access to even sick for the clergy.

Mr. Kearful. What is the religious sentiment of the mass of the people in Mexico? Is it Roman Catholic?

Monsignor Kelley. Luis Cabrera, who is no friend of the church, stated himself that practically all of the people were Catholics.

Mr. Kearful. In view of that fact, how do you account for the persecution of the church, beginning, as you say, with the constitu tion of 1857 and the so-called laws of reform ? Monsignor Kellet. The first reason for the persecution of the church in Mexico was because of the adoption, by the politicians of Mexico chiefly, of the principles of the French Revolution. That revolution had its effect in every Latin country. It was decidedly antireligious, and as the Catholic Church was the only church they knew anything about its sympathizers vented their ///////////// hatred on her. Then the difficulty was helped along by a misun derstanding on the part, first of Juarez, and later of other upholders of the succeeding revolutions, as to the attitude of the people of the United States. They looked upon the American Republic as a consequence, not so much of the desire of the people for freedom from Great Britain, as of the ideas of the French revolution. They believed that the same principles were at the bottom of it, as of the outbreak in France. They thought that America was a Protestant country, and that Protestants hated Catholics. They supposed that anything they could do against the Catholic Church, even to the extent of murdering the priests and outraging the nuns, would gain sympathy for them in the United States. The fact that the United States did help Juarez seemed to confirm the so-called Liberals of Mexico in their error. As a matter of fact every time there has been an anticlerical outbreak, some people in the United States have always been careful to keep the rioters fed up with that idea. For example., a court of the Guardians of Liberty down on the Texan border passed a wonderful series of resolutions commending Gen. Villa because of what he had done in the Avay of torturing priests and nuns. Later on the general justified their confidence in him by invading the United States and proceeding to enlarge on his assassinations so as to include American soldiers. Mr. Kearftjl,. What motive, if you know, politically or histori cally was behind the hatred that you speak of against the church on the part of politicians in Mexico? Monsignor Keli.ey. I am glad that you said " politicians." The people of Mexico do not hate the church. They love the church, the Mexican people attend church as well as any people in the world. They are a pious people. The church has existed since 1857 on their charity and their little offerings. The church has practically had no real donations, never made a drive for millions of dollars. The church has existed in reality on the pennies of the poor. When we opened schools they were always too small. That certainly proves that the people of Mexico do not hate the church, but the politicians do, simply because from the beginning the church has stood out against looting and murder and such like. The politician fears the church. He wants to make a living through politics. He can not keep himself in power by constitutional means, because elections are a joke. He intends to appeal to arms and stir up revolution. The power that could destroy him is the power of the church, if the church descended to his kind of tactics; so he fears the church as the one thing that is stronger than himself, if she exerted her power in ways she abhors.

Mr. Kearful. Do you believe that if the church in Mexico were left unhampered to pursue its course under a democratic constitution, that the result would be beneficial to the people and democratic government?

Monsignor Kelley. I certainly do. I believe that if Mexico had religious liberty as it exists here, and honest and fair elections, Mexico's troubles would be at an end, and the soldier politician would be out of a job.

Mr. Kearful. Do you think that would result in a union of church and state, so that the church would be in control of the state? //////////

Monsignor Kelley. No; because the church does not ask for such a union. Leaving principles and theories aside, practically, unions of church and state have not frequently been successful, except for the state. They seem to work out in the same general way, putting affairs of the church under the control of the state, and thereby injuring the church. I have spoken to all, or practically all, of the exiled bishops of Mexico, and I have asked every one what he thought would be the result of the adoption by Mexico of religious liberty as it exists here. Without exception they said that the idea was so good that they could not even hope for it. It was too much to hope for.

Mr. Kearful. We have often heard in this country that the trouble with Mexico was it has been priest-ridden. What can you say in reference to that?

Monsignor Kelley. The best answer to the charge that Mexico is priest-ridden is to give the figures. Some of them were given by Navarro y Noriega, published in the Buletin de la Sociedad Mexicana -de Geograna y Estadistica, 2a Edoca, volume 1, pages 290-291. He places the number of clergy in Mexico in 1810 as 7,341. Of that number 3,112 belonged to orders devoted to teaching, hos pital, and other public service. There were 2,098 sisters, most of them teachers. The Mexican popidation in 1810 was 6.122,354. The proportion of the clergy to the population was then 1 to 834. Now, in 1917, according to the account of the United States Census Bureau, the number of Catholic clergymen in the United States was 20,287, and the Catholic population was 15,742,262, a proportion of clergy to population of 1 to 776. But in the whole United States in 1917 there were 191,722 clergymen of all denominations, and 42,044,374 church members. So that in the United States in 1917 there was a clergyman to every 219 church members, while in Mexico in 1810 there was only one clergyman to 834 of the entire population. If you consider only the clergy of the United States other than Catholic, the proportion is one clergyman to every 153 church mem bers, and in some of the non-Catholic bodies the clergy are as numerous as 1 to 35. Of course, these latter are very small denominations.

Mr. Kearful. Have vou later figures for Mexico than 1810?

Monsignor Kelley. 1 have used 1810 because I think that year saw the largest number of clergy in Mexico. It has diminished since that time. The clergy were relatively more numerous then than at any other period. The number has now declined to about 5,000, which gives a relative proportion to population of one priest to every 3,000 people in Mexico. That is my answer to your question.

Mr. Kearful. We have also sometimes heard of the inordinate wealth of the church in Mexico. What about that?

Monsignor Kelley. I saw no evidence of wealth in those priests who came here, and I have had considerable to do with what busi ness some of the Mexican bishops had in the United States since their return. Although I am not authorized to speak about their busi ness affairs, nevertheless, I feel that it is only a matter of justice to them to say, that the church of Mexico has practically no endow ment and no wealth. When charges were made that the church in Mexico was wealthy, these charges usually hark back to Spanish times. 4766— 20— vol 2 66 END2671

@@ I have here in my hand part of the manuscript of an unpublished book by Mr. Eber Cole Byam, who happens to be a non-Catholic and a Free Mason. Mr. Byam has made a study of the religious question in Mexico, and will shortly publish his book on that subject. I would like to read a few things on that point in reference to Spanish times into the record : The main sources of church income were the tithes, interest from invested funds, and rentals from productive real estate. The productive real estate consisted of rented city" properties and farms, and the funds were " laid out," as Huinholdt says, "on farms of small cultivators." He further says: (1822 edition, vol. 3, p. 102) "These capitals are usefully directed and increase the productive power of the national labor." These loans drew 5 per cent and so long as the interest was paid there was no concern about the principal. Dr. Mora, an apostate priest, who sought the confiscation of all the church property, says of this wealth (Mexico y sus Revoluciones, vol. 1, p. 121) that it formed a character of loan bank which contributed greatly to the develop ment of agriculture and the prosperity of the country. Itamos Arizpe, a radical, a York Rite Mason, and Secretary of State for Victoria, made a report to the Mexican Congress in 1826 in which he said of the clergy and these funds : " Limited in numbers, select In origin, and most mod erate in the acquisition of large country estates, without compare they devoted the greater part of the riches that piety had placed in their hands to the pur pose, and in a manner, of public benefit for the encouragement of agriculture, commerce, and every industry." (Boletin, etc., la Epoca, vol. 1, p. 137.) Another writer, Josf Guadalupe Romero (Boletin, etc., 2a Epoca, vol. 3, p. 556), says, in 1860. regarding the church, the clergy, and the funds handled by them: "They formed a perennial loan bank for agriculture and commerce. There has not been in the Republic a laborer or worried capitalist who has not remedied his needs or increased his business with the capitals of the church loaned at so moderate a charge that, while these funds existed, the loan sharks were unable to effect a rise in the rate of interest." Matias Romero tells us that " The wealth of the church was loaned out at a moderate rate of interes * * *, and to its credit be it said was not at all usurious, exacting only a fair rate of interest, and being hardly ever oppressive in dealing with delinquent debtors." (Mexico and the United States, p. 93.) And this is what Juan A. Mateos had to say : " In the days of the old regime, when the clergy possessed a great number of city and country properties, year after year went by without the shameful evictions to which so many poor families are the victims to-day. The sordid avarice of the landlords of to-day has no compassion in contrast to the clergy who, animated by a spirit truly Christian, overlooked and excused. The church loaned its capital at a low rate of interest, 4 per cent, 5 per cent, or at 6 per cent, which was called the legal rate, a rate unknown to-day. Very rarely was a foreclosure notice published against a property pledged for a loan from these funds. For this reason I proposed, at the time of their confiscation, that a bank for the poor be established from the millions of the clergy, but my voice was drowned in the midst of the tumult of passions of the revolution. Because of this, the selfish interests and exactions of to-day have left homeless the many families who formerly enjoyed the tolerance and charity of the clergy." (From a speech by Juan A. Mateos in the Mexican Chamber of Deputies on the 20th of October. 1893.) The invested funds of the church amounted, in 1S04, to $44,.">0 yearly in interest. (Mora. Mex. y sus Rev. vol. 1. p. 121.) The chaplain benefited thereby was usually employed by some institution or by some wealthy family, which thus found a place for some poor relation who. in many cases, acted as tutor to the children of the family. On the death of the beneficiary the fund often passed to some pious work or obra pia. The obra pia was a fund that accomplished any good purpose other than the support of a chaplain. From these funds a large number of pupils were supported in boarding schools, where the cost averaged about $100 per year. In other words, a great many of these funds were In reality scholarship foundations. //////////// The funds were therefore trust funds administered by the clery ns trustees lu conformity to the wishes of the donors who hud placed them in their hands to be used for specific purposes, mostly educational and charitable. Taking Mr. Bvan's figures, the wealth of the church at that time was about $44,500,000.

Mr. Kearful. At what time? GOGOGO Monsignor Keixey. That was about the time of the first or par tial confiscation, in 1804. The confiscation by Juarez deprived the people of their loan banks. Our own Federal farm loan arrange ment is an attempt by our Government to give to the United States what the church gave to Mexico without cost. Here in the United States we have come to the very thing that the Mexican clergy gave the people long years ago. The confiscation of that money gave the loan sharks an opportunity in Mexico. So they proceeded to gouge the natives, and that practically caused the economic ruin of the country. It has been ascerted by biased writers that the clergy of Mexico- exacted great fees. I again quote from Mr. Bj'an : The fees which the clergy generally were permitted to receive for marriages, baptisms, burials, and musses were fixed, and those accepting anything in excess of the sums allowed were fined double the sum accepted. These fees varied with the pomp of the ceremony desired, nothing for the simple cere monies for the poor, and graded to suit the purses of the well-to-do. The fees also varied with the diocese. In that part of Mexico one peso wns allowed for baptism. Marriages performed in the parish church occasioned no fees whatever. If the priest performed the service elsewhere he was permitted to accept 4 pesos. For burials no fees were accepted unless accompanied by cremonies requiring extra services. The Indians paid no fees for any of these services unless extra ceremonies were desired, and then the fees were ex pressly stated to be the half of those accepted from the Spaniards. In addition to the foregoing the laws of the Mexican Church expressly pro hibit exacting any fee whatever from the Indians for any religious service." Dr. Mora was, as I have already pointed out, one of the enemies of the church. In 1833 Dr. Mora estimated the wealth of the church at as high as $179,103,754, but he figured it out in a very peculiar way. From his own works we find out his method. He stated that the amount of the tithes collected in 1829 was $2,341,152. He multi plies that by 20 and charges the product to the church as capital, capital which, of course, never existed. Then he assumes that every parish priest collected $600 a year in fees, and charges that to an income account. He multiplies the grand total by 20 and charges that up to the church as capital. Then he submits the alms re ceived to the same process, and so on down the line, which certainly is an original way of finding out what an institution is worth. Imagine the figures for the United States with the small incomes of over 100,000 clergies is figured into capital by the Mora method. Divesting Mora's tabulation of its fictitious values we have left less than $100,000,000 for all properties, both productive and unpro ductive. According to Mora, the unproductive properties amounted to some $50,000,000. Mora gives the church income as $7,405,593. Divesting his figure of its' fictitious values, we have a remainder of $4,782,153. Nearly half of this was the tithing. When the various educational and other beneficient enterprises are considered it will be seen that the Mexican clergy accomplished remarkable results with the money available. /////////////

Mr. Kearful. What became of the actual property that was con fiscated ?

Monsignor Kelley. In 1866, when the confiscation was practic ally complete, the State recorded the receipt of property worth $62,365,516.41. Instead of establishing loan banks with that prop erty, as had been suggested by Mateos, the "patriots" were permitted to browse in the green fields and pastures new. One great " patriot " bought 50 houses in Mexico City worth $525,528 for $1,832.42 in cash, and Government due bills which had cost him $40,077.90. That was the foundation of one of the largest fortunes in Mexico. The only reason why I do not mention the name of that family is because it has become so distinguished in Mexico, and there is no particular reason for selecting one family when so many of the members of the liberal party received fortunes through the same dubious means. The buildings of public benefit, such as schools, colleges, acade mies, and such like,- were turned into city halls, court houses, bar racks, stables, and jails. All the property of the church confiscated in France within this generation produced nothing but a couple of million of francs, with some prison sentences for those who handled the confiscation. The same statement applies in Mexico.

Mr. Kearful. Except as to the prison sentences?

Monsignor Kelley. Except as to the prison sentences.

Mr. Kearful. Do you desire to make a statement contrasting the present wealth of the church in Mexico with similar institutions in this country?

Monsignor Kelley. I would like to do that. I have some figures here that are very interesting, but when I select one Protestant de nomination in America for the comparison I did not mean to be at all discourteous. I had to take one prominent Protestant religious denomination, and I selected the Baptist because I happen to have the figures from their yearbook for 1916; and the church wealth in Mexico can best be appreciated by comparing it with that of a religious body in the United States which has approximately the same number of adherents. That happens to be the Baptist. I take the figures from the yearbook mentioned. Baptist adherents in 1916 were 6,107,686 in number, which closely approximates the estimated population of Mexico in 1810, which was 6,122,354. I again call your attention to the fact that I am taking the year 1810 because at that time the clergy were most numerous in Mexico. The Baptists in 1910. according to the figures given, had 6.107,686 adherents in the United States; Mexico, in 1810. had a population of 6,122,354. Baptist churches, 1916, in the United States, 51.248: Catholic churches in Mexico, taking the figures in 1889 — which were the only figures that I could get, but when the population was still greater than in 1810 — 10.112. Baptist ministers in 1916, 36,926: Mexican priests in 1810. 7,341. In vested funds and productive Baptist propertv of the United States in 1916, $98,453,844; for Mexico I have had' to take the figures of 1804, six years before 1810, which are $72,873,473. and include sev eral millions of unproductive properties, the population about the same. The annual income of the Baptist Church of the United States in 1916, probably including everything, was $43,055,067: Mexico, ////////// in 1810, $7,692,807. Church values, Baptists, $173,705,800; Mexico, $30,031,894. The Baptist income, it should be noted, is largely through contributions, which takes the place of the Mexican tithes, which are voluntary donations. Now, it must be remembered that Baptist properties and income accumulated as a result of a little more than 100 years of work. In 1812 there were only 173,072 Baptists in the United States. Even in 190(5 the figures are only a little more than half the figures for 1916. The church in Mexico was a going and prosperous concern when Roger Williams fled to the wilderness, and it took jiearly 300 years to accumulate its property. The exact figures to-day are not available, but in round num bers they will closely approximate the following: Clergymen, Bap tist, in the United States, 50,000; Mexican, 5,000. Baptist churclies, 00,000; Mexican, 10,000. Baptist income, $50,000,000; Mexican, very small. Baptist clergymen are relatively 20 times as numerous as the Mexican. Baptist churclies belong to the Baptists. In Mexico the churches belong to the Government; and as for income, the Mexican clergy are living to-day on the charity of their friends and relatives, for the people have been bled white.

Mr. Kearful. Does that mean the people have been bled white by the church? Monsignor Keli.ky. No: the people have been bled white by revo lutions, for the revolutionists live on the people.

Mr. Kearful. The same revolutionists that have driven the priests and nuns out of Mexico and desecrated the churches?

Monsignor Kelley. The same revolutionists: and the end is not yet. I would like also to call your attention to this fact, that in all these charges about the practices of the church in Mexico, the church never dreamed of possessing the power to make a drive for over $300,000,000, which the Protestant churches of the United States are making right at this time. The amount of money asked by the Protestant churches of the United States from the State of New York alone in this drive would be considered fabulous wealth for a period of 10 years for the church in Mexico. Again, I would like to call your attention to the fact that the en dowment of a single American church, Trinity in New York, if the stories I hear about the wealth of that church are true, would almost, if not quite, surpass the entire assessed valuation of the confiscated church property in Mexico. The University of Chicago (Baptist) is said to have received over half that sum from one man alone. Tt has been held by some that the possession of even $02,000,000 endowment and other values of the entire church in Mexico with her hospitals and educational work was a menace to the country. If that is the case, what about the wealth of so manv Americans who indi vidually are worth more than $62,000,000?' And what about the Rockefeller, Sage, and Carnegie funds — far more heavily endowed than the church in Mexico — and which are not only chartered insti tutions under our laws, but very generally considered as most bene ficial institutions? Yet the people who look with favor on these in stitutions often thoughtlessly take their cue from revolutionists in Mexico and condemn the Catholic church for what little endowment she had. ////////////

Mr. Kearful. Mr. John Lind, in his testimony the other day, de nied that he had ever attributed the ills of Mexico to the influence of the Catholic church, but stated that he had become convinced that the church had not done as much as it ought to have done in the posi tion it occupied toward the education of the people. What can you say about the educational work of the Catholic church in Mexico ?

Monsignor Kelley. It must be remembered that the educational question in Mexico at the beginning, and for a good many years after, was purely an Indian question. The church had to take savages and civilize them through religion and education. In order to do that, the church often had to fight the officials of the State who did not think the Indians should be educated. It is said there was once a discussion in Mexico as to whether or not an Indian had a soul. If such a discussion ever took place, it was because church men had to rebuke such ideas on the part of those who did not care to have the Indians educated. From the beginning the missionaries of the church insisted upon instruction going with religion, and they were successful. The first university on this continent, it must be remembered, was established in Mexico, and there were schools of higher education, as well as professional schools in Mexico, before Harvard was born. The most beautiful architecture on the American Continent is still in Mexico. Mexico was far in advance in the early days of her northern neighbor, which is our country to-day.

Mr. Kearful. Was that due to the work and influence of the church ?

Monsignor Kelley. Absolutely due to the work and influence of the church. The educators in Mexico were the priests. It is per fectly true that they did not teach many branches in the little Indian mission schools, but schools were attached to every mission. They taught reading, writing, singing, religion, and politeness, and if they have lost all the rest, they have kept at least the religion and the politeness. That was all work done for Indians. It was a work of devotion that meant many sacrifices. It was a work endowed only by the flesh and blood of the missionaries and teachers. These went out to the Indians, whether there was money to help them or not. In our own northern colonies little attention was paid to converting the Indians to Christianity, none at all in the beginning. Practically nothing was done in the early days of the colonies. But when we did fet going heie, a good deal of money was spent on our Indians. If lexico had spent in the same proportion as the United States, it would require $400,000,000 a year, and out of that $90,000,000 would have to go for schools. In other words. Mexico would be required to spend a sum greater than all its revenue, municipal. State, and national, for the Indian in Mexico forms a very large majority of the population. The colonial authorities in Mexico never collected more than $20,000,000 a vear, and if I mistake not, Mr. Carranza is not collecting half of $400,000,000 a year. As to the method of the educational work, I should like to quote from Mr. Byam: Regarding t lie labors of the missionaries, Garcia Ienzhalceta, in his bio graphical notice on Frinr Gante, has this to say: "The task was tremendously difficult because the means were entirely disproportionate to the ends. They were confronted not with the education of the children as they arrived suc cessively at the proper age. as in our day, but with an entire and numerous generation, big and little, men and women, who all at once were in urgent need //////////// of religious and civil instruction from the very foundations, nnd without knowing even the language of their masters. The friars were few, and realiz ing that if they attempted everything they would accomplish nothing, they de cided to divide their time between the conversion of the adults and the educa tion of the children. Kndeavoring thus to take care of the emergency, leading the adults from- their errors, and giving the children, who were docile anil not yet imbued with the old beliefs, the new religion with their education. They counted, moreover, that once the little ones were instructed in the faith they would serve to bring in their elders, and they were not deceived in their hopes. That shows somewhat of the difficulties the early missionary edu cators had to face. The same authority, speaking of methods, says: The schools were generally low halls with dormitories and other rooms adjoining. There were schools in all the principal convents, and so large that some of the held S(>0 to 1,000 pupils. The most famous of all was that of Mexico, founded by Friar Pedro de Gante. As customary it was behind the con vent church extending toward the north. * * * In this school there were soon gathered a thousand Indians. In the morning they were given lessons in reading, writing, and singing, and in the afternoon were given religious instruc tion. ******* The friars were thus the discoverers of the fact that the only way to obtain satisfactory results in the education of the Indians was to catch them very young and place them in boarding schools where they would be out of contact with their parents. Otherwise they form attachments for their old home life that are impossible to break, nnd when their education is finished they return to the ways of their fathers and all the work is wasted. Even some of those who had been in boarding schools relapsed nnd returned to the tepee. We have had the same trouble, by the way, in the education of our Indians. Moffett, in referring to the Winnebagoes of Wisconsin, says: The Winnebagoes of Wisconsin are a backward people. They have been given homesteads of 40 acres for each male adult, hut few of them live on their allotments. The children who attend the school do not usually finish the course, and upon returning to their people lapse back into many of the old ways. The friars had to face that trouble with their Indians, too. Now, as to the result of all this, quoting again : An eloquent witness to the educational labors of the clergy and the happy results therefrom Is one Geronimo Lopez, who appears to have been a person of some imiiortnnee and who wrote, in October, 1541, to the King, apparently at his command, about affairs in Mexico. (Coleccion de Document os para la His- foria de Mexico, vol. 2, p. 148. i Lopez was opposed to educating the Indians and takes occasion to complain bitterly of the efforts of the friars to do this. He declares that the friars have taught large numbers of them to read and write and that they are such excellent ]>enmen that " it is a marvel to see them " and that " there are so many and such good scrivners " that he can not count them. Again, he charges that the friars hnve taught the Indians Latin so well that they speak it like another Cicero, " and every day the number grows." As to the law for the education of the Indians, the laws of the Indies (Kecopilacion de Indias, Lib. VI, Tit. I, Ley XVIII) states that " where possible schools must be established to teach them to read and write Spanish and at no cost to them." On the 7th of June, 1550, the King wrote a letter to the provincial of the Dominicans charging him to see that the Indians were taught the Spanish language. (El Clero de Mexico Durante la Dominiacion Espanola, Genaro Garcia, p. 106.) The church law also takes account of schools by declaring that every curate must " procure with all diligence " the establishment of END2677

@@@@@ schools in their towns where the children may be taught to read and write Spanish. Humboldt visited the city of Mexico in 1803 and of it he says : (Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain, New York, 1811. p. 159) " No city of the new continent, without even excepting those of the United States, can display such great and solid scientific establishments as the capital of Mexico." Joel Poinsett was sent to Mexico as a special agent by President Monroe in 1822. Poinsett was an ardent partisan of the radicals who were trying to overthrow Iturbide. He was also a bitter enemy of the church and the Spaniard. He remarks that most of Ihe people in the cities can read and write and that he frequently remarked men clothed in the garb of extreme poverty reading the gazettes in the streets. (Poinsett, Notes on Mexico, London, 1825. p. 122.) He was there only a few months, which he spent mostly in the City of Mexico. In his journey to and from the coast he had occasion to observe the peasantry, whom he says (Op. cit., p. 266), are " a kind and amiable people possessing the utmost good nature and great natural politeness. They are, I think, a virtuous and an orderly people, attentive to all the ceremonies of their religion and observant of their moral duties. Thefts are so uncommon among them that our baggage was generally left under a shed ; and assassinations are extremely rare, and when they do occur may always be traced to drunkenness." He observes the effects of the then recent revolution, and says (Op. cit.. p. 240) : " * * * the mines have been destroyed, vil lages and farms have been burnt, whole districts laid waste, and the resources of the country utterly exhausted." After such destruction it is not surprising that he should find (Op. cit., p. 173) that— . "The habitations of the people on the roadside are miserable indeed. The walls are of stone, piled up loosely, like the fences, and not much higher: and the roof is a wooden shed, and sometimes ornamented by ranges of pumpkins. Poinsett is caustic in his criticism of the church and clergy. It was amonort of educational institutions; and as the Government itself was penniless, the result is obvious. (Op. cit., p. 538. ) During the revolution chaos that prevailed with growing Intensity, from 1810 until almost 1880, there was little opportunity for the extension of edu cational facilities or works of public benefit. The church was under constant attack and by the time Diaz had established a character of order It had been robbed of every dollar and every piece of property. In fact, the educational, financial, and benevolent Institutions of the country, built during 300 years, were reduced to utter ruin. I would like also to put into this statement, that in later years, under the constitution and laws of reform, Catholics have been obliged to be very reticent regarding the number of schools they had in Mexico. 2679

@@@ For example, officially in Puebla it was reported, at the primary ed ucational congress in 1911, that the clergy had '2-4 schools in that State. In the United States, however, it was not so necessary to allow people to do guesswork, and the number was given as 300. The same report gives 69 as the number of schools directed by Cath olics in Michoacan. However, in the United States it was known that there were 270. The archdiocese of Mexico had over 230 schools with about 50,000 pupils, and there were a number of private schools conducted independently by the clergy. In addition there was a large number of private schools conducted by Catholic citizens employing lay teachers. In the absence of exact data only round numbers can be given for the whole country. There were several thousand schools caring for upwards of 300.000 pupils. That this number is not an exag geration is evident by the complaints of some of the revolutionary pamphleteers, who urged the large number of Catholic schools as one of the pretexts for revolution. The oppressive effect of the anti-Catholic laws was particularly apparent in the case of the professional schools. Civil engineers or doctors educated in Catholic colleges were barred practically from practicing their professions bv reason of the numerous and exasper ating difficulties placed in their way merely because they were Cath olics. The purpose and effect of these hampering regulations was to force students into the government schools where an active propa ganda was carried on against religion. I want to emphasize the fact that all the work that was done since 1857 was done in spite of an adverse law. I want to put it in the record without having had the question asked, because I want it knowTn that what the church did since 1857 for education it had to do by stealth and at its own risk. That covers the educa tional feature. Mr. Kearfdl. Is it the result of your investigation that whatever educational work has been accomplished in Mexico prior to the con fiscation of church and school property was done by the Cathoiic Church?

Monsignor Kelley. Prior to the confiscation the amount of edu cational work done outside of the church and its influence, I think, was practically nil.

Mr. Kearful. And since that time your answer to the criticism of John Lind is that the church could not, under the law, do even what it has done in the way of education?

Monsignor Kelley. My answer is that I have been told time and time again of Catholic schools that were selected for raiding, by the State authorities, because complaints had been lodged with Presi dent Diaz against them, the complaints being simply Catholic re ligious communities were in existence and teaching. President Diaz knew that these schools were necessary for the people. He ordered the raids in accordance with the law, but somehow, in most cases, advance information was received and there was nobody in the school building when the officials arrived. Mr. Lind charges that we have not done enough to promote popular education in Mexico. It was under these conditions that we have worked since 1857, robbed of our endowments, robbed of our build 2680

@@@@@@@ ings, so that everything that we have done was contrary to the law. And yet we have produced, purely through Catholic education in Mexico, an Indian race that we do not hesitate to compare with our own Indian races in America. This country has spent millions of dollars in schools and colleges for the North American Indians. I can not remember the name of one single North American Indian who has come to the front in any line of endeavor, except as a mili tary leader, such as Sitting Bull. But the blood of the Mexican Indian is in probably 85 per cent of the Mexican people, and they have produced a governmental genius like Diaz, soldiers like Mejia, surgeons like Urrutia, philosophers like Bishop Mungia, scientists like Carrillo y Ancona, theologians like Alarcon. poets like Altami- rano, political savants like Estagnol. journalistic lights like Sanchez Santos, artists like Panduro and Velazques, and lawyers like Jose Verea. In every walk of life, in every profession or trade, in educa tion, science, art. statesmanship, the Mexican Indian has had his place, while his teachers are charged with having neglected him.

Mr. Kearful. Have you anything to say about the relationship of the church and state in Mexico from a historical viewpoint?

Monsignor Kelley. The only union of church and state in Mexico was during Spanish times, with a loose bond for a few years after. From my reading of the history of Mexico, I judge that, while the union in many cases helped the missionaries, and while under some governors it worked well and for the benefit of the people, in general it onlv enabled colonial officials to retard the work of the church. As I have stated already* the church in Mexico is not asking for a union of church and state, and in my judgment, the bishops of Mexico would run very far away from any such thing, if they feared that it might be offered. What they want is religious liberty, and let it go at that: not religious liberty for themselves alone, but religious liberty for all. just as it exists in the United States of America.

Mr. Kearful. Mr. Lind, in his testimony, mentions the Catholic party in Mexico as a political influence. What do you know about that Catholic party?

Monsignor Kelley. The Catholic party was founded shortly before Madero took office, as a conservative party, to try by consti tutional means to do away with the irreligious clauses of the consti tution of 1857 and the laws of reform. In other words, the Catholic party was trying to bring about in Mexico that same religious liberty that we have here.

Mr. Kearful. And that Mr. Byam wrote about?

Monsignor Kelley. And that Mr. Byam wrote about. In all other respects the Catholic party was simply a conservative party. It was a departure in Mexico from the ordinary to have a party which intended to appeal to the people at the polls, and to rely upon its strength with the people to secure the adoption of its policies. Naturally, the leaders went to see Madero. They told him what they intended to do, and get his opinion. Madero praised them, welcomed the party as one of the first fruits of his own policies, and told the leaders to go ahead, which they did. No one knows the actual result of the election, because while the voting was honest, nevertheless the count was a different matter. It is generally supposed that the Cath olic part}' won the election, but it was assigned only a small number 2681

@@@@@ of seats, because Madero's brother immediately started a group called La Porra, which was formed to shout the Catholics down. The con servatives took the name " Catholic " so that, when they went before the people, all would know that that was the body trying to do away with religious disability. The church had nothing whatever to do with it officially. It was a movement among Catholic citizens, and I should say that if, in any republic of the world, the same oppressive laws were made against Protestants that were made against all re ligions in Mexico, there would be no question but that a Protestant party would be organized.

Mr. Kearful. Have you read the testimony given by John Lind the other day ?

Monsignor Kelley. Yes, sir; I read Mr. Lind's testimony yes terday.

Mr. Kearful. Have you noticed any statements made by him that you would like to answer? Monsignor Kelley. There are a few statements that I would like to refer to in a short way. Mr. Lind stated : " Outside of the towns there was not a school- house to be. found in Mexico at that time." Now, I don't know whether Mr. Lind is referring to the time when he himself was in Mexico, or whether he is referring to the time when the Catholic church was supposed to be in control of education in Mexico. I pre sume the latter, because Mr. Lind says, " The policy of the church has not been to foster popular education of the masses." Now, if Mr. Lind means there was no schoolhouse to be found in Mexico when he was there, outside of the towns, I answer that he must ask his revolutionary friends the reason. If he means that there was not a schoolhouse outside of the towns before the confiscation of church property, I can only pity Mr. Lind as being completely ignorant of what he is talking about, or an intentional prevaricator. Again, Mr. Lind says that "more schools were established under the Carranza government than ever before." You asked him whether more schools were established under the Carranza government than ever before. He answered " yes." I do not know where Mr. Lind got his figures. My information is the opposite. He mentioned a certain number of Mexican girls who were sent up here to be instructed in teaching. These girls were sent up by the governor, Gen. Salvador Alvarado. of Yucatan. And yet many schools of Yucatan have been, according to all the information that we can get, in charge of people who can neither read nor write, and who were purely political representatives of the socialistic government of Alvarado. I heard that some Mexican young women had been sent up here, but I also heard that they did not remain. There are no more schoools in Yucatan than there were before the revolu tion, and there are few srhools of any value even now. There are fewer schools in all Mexico than before the revolution. Mr. Lind stated, in answer to a question as to whether or not the Catholic Church was responsible for the difficulties of Mexico, that he felt that a State church in politics is a misfortune to any country. As I have already pointed out. the Catholic Church in Mexico is not a State church, nor has the Catholic Church in Mexico been in politics. If you go back to Spanish times, when the church had a connection with the State, vou will find the most glorious 2682

@@ period of Mexican history, the one period during which actual progress toward civilization and enlightenment was made. Since the confiscation of the church property and the persecution of the church, anyone reading the history of Mexico can see the country has reached the depths. Mr. Lind referred to the Catholic party also, but I have answered that question. Mr. Lind also said that he did not say to Mr. Frisbie that the Catholic Church should be driven out of Mexico. I do not know Mr. Lind personally, but I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Frisbie. To me the question is one of veracity, because Mr. Frisbie told me that Mr. Lind had made that statement to him. Mr. Lind also says he thinks it a misfortune that a larger effort by those in a position to exercise power had not been made to estab lish and maintain popular education. Inasmuch as he had just been talking of the church, I presume his reference is to the clergy. The only power the clergy exercised in establishing and maintain ing education was exercised, as I have already shown, in spite of the law. If we had exercised any more of zeal in the same way we would have had more special representatives coming back to say that the Catholic Church got what she deserved, because she was violating the law. Now, when Mr. Lind regrets that we did not exercise our power more, does he regret that we did not violate the law more, or what? I don't know. Mr. Lind also stated : " In the south, if Spanish writers and his torians are to be believed, the cultural stage of the Mexican people was very nearly as high at the time of the conquest as it is to-day." If American writers and historians are to be believed, later investiga tion has shown us that this wonderful civilization of the Aztecs was largely based on the imagination of the Spanish conquerors. It was to their advantage to report great things done, and they did so report to the King of Spain. Every victory won was a great victory: every town captured was a great town; every bit of loot they had was untold wealth. Later on the Spanish governors de sired to have Spain make large appropriations for the colonies. It was still their business to exaggerate, and they exaggerated. The best authority on the subject is Bandolier. Prescott is no authority. Placing him side by side with Bandolier on the question of the aboriginal Mexican, he descends to the position of a gossip. Mr. Lind also stated, in answer to a question as to whether or not he had anything to say regarding my " Book of Bed and Yellow," that he did not want any controversy with any "Jesuit or anyone else." I should like to register the fact that Mr. Lind flatters me by calling me a Jesuit. I wish I were pious enough and learned enough to be classed as a Jesuit; but if it will reassure Mr. Lind, I now tell him that I am not a Jesuit, and never was one. Mr. Kkarful. I believe those are all the questions I wish to ask you at this time. Is there anything further that you care to state? Monsignor Kklley. No ; I believe I have covered all that I had in mind. Mr. Kearful,. Then you will be excused. The committee is very much obliged to you. (Whereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 2 o'clock p. m.) 2683

@@@@@ http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=hWBUAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA2317 2317 /// 2333 lind

Mr. Kearful. Did you think that the operations of the Catholic Church in Mexico were for the good or to the injury of the Mexican people ?

Mr. Lixd. That is a controversial question that I think would be very unfair and very unprofitable to discuss.

Mr. Kearful. I am asking only for what your opinion was.

Mr. Lixd. I may not agree with some of the policies of the Catholic Church or any other church, but for me to undertake to condemn its work in toto would be an absurdity that no sane man, no level headed man could be guilty of.

Mr. Kearful. Was it one of the bases of your matured views that one of the difficulties in Mexico was the operations of the Catholic Church ?

Mr. Lixd. No, sir. I have said and have felt that a state church in politics is a misfortune to anv country. I have always felt that w ay and feel that way nov, and 1 think, when those were the conditions in Mexico, that Mexico was no exception.

Mr. Kearful. You did not find those conditions existent when you were there, did you?

Mr. Lixd. What conditions?

Mr. Kearful. This interference in politics on the part of the church ?

Mr. Lixd. I do not know, but they had a Catholic party, a church party, and always have had, as I understand it.

Mr. Kearful. Do you remember the so-called lavs of reform instituted by Bonita Juarez following the constitution of 1857 (

Mr. Lixd. Yes.

Mr. Kearful. Is it not your understanding that ever since that time the church has had no influence in state affairs ?

Mr. Lixd. Theoretically, no.

Mr. Kearful. Was not the church property all taken away by the Government and held as Government property?

Mr. Lixd. I could not discuss those questions with any degree of accuracy.

Mr. Kearful. Were you of the opinion, at the time you formu lated your views, that it was necessary to do something to eliminate the influence of the Catholic Church in Mexico ?

Mr. Lixd. No, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Did you learn anything about the operations of the revolutionists of the north in reference to the persecution of priests and nuns and the descration of churches?

Mr. Lixd. Only what I have seen reported, and I have also seen claims and since my return I have talked with men, both Americans and Mexicans, in regard to those reports and have been told that they were some of thorn false and very many greatly exaggerated. That some things occurred there is no doubt. I never heard of orderly warfare anywhere. I think Mexican outrages rather paled into insignificance compared with what has transpired in the highly civilized countries of Europe since that time.

Mr. Kearful. Did you ever express an opinion that the Catholic Church was responsible for the bad conditions in Mexico i

Mr. Lixd. No, sir.

Mr. Kearful. You never expressed that opinion to Nelson 0 'Shaughnessy ?

@@@@ 2334

Mr. Lind. No, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Or to Mr. Bernard Frisbie ?

Mr. Lind. Who is he ? I do not remember.

Mr. Kearful. You do not recall expressing such an opinion to Mr. O 'Shaughnossy and Mr. Frisbie on board a Ward Line steamer ?

Mr. Lind. I certainly have not. I might have said that it was very unfortunate that the Catholic Church, with its hold on the people and its power, has not devoted more efforts to education of the masses of the Mexican people. That I may have said, and I say that now.

Mr. Kearful. Where did you get that information that the Catholic Church has not performed its proper functions in regard to the matters ?

Mr. Lind. I did not say it had not performed its proper functions. Whether an institution had performed its proper functions depends upon the time, place, and the circumstances. But I say now that I think it very unfortunate that a larger effort by those in position to exercise power has not been made to establish and maintain popular education. For instance, I do not agree with the opposition in the United States to our public school system and our public schools. I have never concealed that fact.

Mr. Kearful. Did Secretary of State Bryan ever suggest to you that the Catholic Church was responsible for the conditions in Mexico ?

Mr. Lind. No, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Did he ever express himself to you on that subject ?

Mr. Lind. Not that I recall.

Mr. Kearful. Do you remember having a conversation with Nelson O'Shaughnessy in Mexico City in which he stated that it had been reported that a number of priests had been killed; and did you at that conversation express your satisfaction that such had been the case I

Mr. Lind. No, sir. If any statement of that character has been made it is absolutely and unqualifiedly false.

Mr. Kearful. Did you get your information in regard to the operations of the Catholic Church from the Protestant missionaries in Mexico 1

Mr. Lind. I can not say that I got it from any particular source. It was my aim and effort to study the activities of all the institutions, all instrumentalities that operated among the Mexican people. I sought to obtain information from all sources.

Mr. Kearful. After you returned from Mexico, you delivered some lectures which were subsequently embodied in a booklet pub lished by The Bellman, Minneapolis, Minn., entitled ' 'The Mexican People, by John Lind, formerly personal representative of President Wilson in Mexico." Does that booklet embody your views about Mexico ?

Mr. Lind. You premised by saying that I delivered some lectures. I did not deliver any lectures. 1 received an invitation from the Traffic Club of Chicago shortly after my return, a very urgent invita tion to be their guest and speak on the Mexican situation, i accepted and delivered an address. I have not delivered it anywhere else. Mr. Edgar, of the Northwestern Miller, who was impressed with the situation, heard of the address; it had been commented on to him;

@2335 and he called on me and asked to see it, and I gave him the manu script to read. Afterwards he asked to publish it. 1 said, ''Co ahead." Unfortunately, he did not state in The Bellman that it was delivered as an address on the occasion that i referred to. He published it rather as an original article. Of course, it was not pre pared with the care that I would exercise in writing an article for publication. You can see by the latter part of it that it is not con structed as one would prepare an article for publication. But I did deliver that speech as printed by him.

Mr. Kearful. When did you prepare that address ?

Mr. Lind. A couple of days before it was delivered. Mr. Kearfi'l. The booklet does not show when it was delivered.

Mr. Lind. It was in the latter part of 191 4 — probably in October or November of 1914.

Mr. Kearful. T notice, on page 10 of the booklet, this statement: Northern Mexico was settled by killing and driving out the Indians who originally roved over the country much in the same manner as our West was settled. Do you believe that to be a correct statement ? Mr. Lind. I think the settlement of Chihuahua and northern Mexico was accomplished very much like the settlement of Arizona, and the territory in our country north from the line. As I read Mexican history, they had Indian fights the same as we had in early days, though not to the same extent that we had.

Mr. Kearful. Have you traveled over Chihuahua and Sonora ?

Mr. Lind. No; I have not.

Mr. Kearful. You have observed the conditions there with refer ence to the Indian settlements which are still there by way of contrast with the Indian settlements in the northern part of Mexico ?

Mr. Lind. You must bear in mind that the Indian population in those parts is very different from the Indian population that we had on our side of the line. Many of the Indians of Sonora, as well as the Indians south of a line drawn roughly from Tampico to Mazatlan were settled, industrial, agricultural people, with developed industries and a settled social and economic development. They were not blanket Indians, like many of the Indians toward the border and north of the border.

Mr. Kearful. Do you think that the present Indian population of Chihuahua and Sonora are similar to the blanket Tndians that you are familiar with in Minnesota and other parts of the West of the United States ?

Mr. Lind. I could not answer that question by "yes" or "no." There is no peculiar feature about the Indian population from the northern part of our State and the Indian as far south as I have been in Mexico. There is a general similarity in physiognomy and appear ance. In fact, I have seen peons walking around the plaza at vera Cruz of an evening who to me looked very mucli like the Chippcwas that I am familiar with in the northern part of the State so far as facial appearance was concerned, but the differences are cultural rather than physical.

Mr. Kearful. From whom do you understand that the Indians received their cultural development? Was it not from the Spanish priests and friars that settled among them?

@ 2336

Mr. Lind. That is probably true in the northern part so far as there is any cultural development. In the south, if Spanish writers and historians are to be believed, the cultural stage of the Mexican people was very nearly as high at the time of the conquest as it is to-day — I mean, the purely Mexican people, the indigenous race.

Mr. Kearful. Where did you get that information ?

Mr. Lind. I got it from Solis, the royal historian of the Indies, as the Americas#were called in those days, under Charles II. He wrote along about 1665, within a century of the conquest, and his language is very specific and very interestingly complete in describing the institutions, the courts, the schools, the general development of the Indians among the Aztecs.

Mr. Kearful. You refer to some of those things in this booklet. Have you, since the publication of this booklet, read a pamphlet issued by Rev. Francis C. Kelly, entitled "A Book of Ked and Yellow," in wliich he refers to the statements made by you?

Mr. Lind. Yes; but I do not care to discuss the book or pamphlet. I do not want any controversy with any Jesuit or anyone else.

Mr. Kearful. He points out in that book that the statements which you made were taken from the works of historians which had been subsequently shown to be imaginary. Have you since investi gated to ascertain whether he is correct in that criticism?

Mr. Lind. I think the histories that I consulted are as reliable as any there are. The historical re'sume' that I have in that address I quoted almost literally from Solis, the Spanish historian, and I shall be very glad to get the volume and call your attention to it. Prescott and all the writers and the investigations published by the Smithsonian Institution and our department of ethnology all concur that the Mexicans had reached a high stage of civilization. For instance, their astronomical computations previous to the conquest were more accurate than any made in Europe up to that time. In view of the fact that you brought this out, i shall ask leave to bring in that volume if you desire to call me after luncheon.

Mr. Kearful. Very well. On page 12 of your booklet I find this statement The better circumstanced of the northern Mexicans invariably learn English and educate their children in the United States. It is these facts that make them rebels against the conditions of the south and of the old Mexico.

Mr. Lind. I think that is true.

Mr. Kearful. And elaborating that somewhat on page 25 I find the following statement The people of the north know us. They like us as well as any foreign people can like another. They are willing to be spoiled by contact with us — yes, thev are willing to trade with us and to deal with us. They are trying to keep step with the march of our people politically. They are going to dominate the future of Mexico. They have the pnysical power, they have the brains, they have the energy. Is that a correct statement according to your understanding?

Mr. Lind. Yes.

Mr. Kearful. As contrasted with the Mexicans of the south ?

Mr. Lind. Well, they are more efficient, they are more determined; there is no question about that; but in point of potential brain power capacity, I really think that the Mexican people of the south, particularly the Oaxacans, are the superior people of Mexico. I am speaking now of the indigenous element as a whole.

@ skip to 2342, after duiscussing commerce culture etc..... begin 2342: that i remained at Vera Cruz that '[ did not have from 1 5 to 25 or 50 callers. May i ask Consul Canada how my estimate is on that ? Consul Canada. There were several every day, Gov. Lind, while you were there, that would come to the office. I could not say how many.

Mr. Lind. No; neither can I, but a great many.

Mr. Kearful. On page 25 of your booklet is this statement: You have heard a great deal about the hostility of the Mexicans against every thing American. I found no such hostility, except among the class who supported Huerta. They hated us. What there is left of them hate us now. They do not hate us as individuals. They hate and dread the influence of our institutions. They say contact with the United States, and even with individual Americans, spoils the peons —

Mr. Lind. That is true. Mr. Kearful (reading) : and make j rebels of them. Their eyes turn to Europe for trade, for finance, and for all intercourse. Do you know whether or not the class of people of whom you were speaking there were the same class that supported Pornrio Diaz?

Mr. Lind. I can not say how their earlier alignments existed.

Mr. Kearful. You are not able to say that that same condition existed in the time of Porfirio Diaz ?

Mr. Lind. No; I say 1 can not speak of that time. I was not in Mexico then.

Mr. Kearful. Did you observe that Huerta failed in any respect in his duties and in the protection of American property rights and personal rights ?

Mr. Lind. Oh, outside of the City of Mexico there was no safety for property or property rights or individuals in Mexico, generally speaking.

Mr. Kearful. You were not outside of Mexico City except to go to Vera Cruz and this one hacienda, were you ?

Mr. Lind. Oh, yes. I was around on the railroad, but I got my reports every day, scores of letters; for instance, delegations came to me from all directions, and the Americans, of course, suffered and were leaving, a great many of them.

Mr. Kearful. You also say on page 25 of the booklet: The elimination of Huerta was demanded by the interests of the Mexican people. How did you ascertain that ?

Mr. Lind. The whole attitude of the Huertista government, as I judged of the situation, was one of force and repression, and I felt confident then, as I do now and as I expressed myself this morning, that the new ideas of the twentieth century had reached Mexico. The people had begun to see, or at least to feel, the injustice that had prevailed; the conditions under which they had lived. They looked for better things, such as they had seen across the line in the United States. Mr. Lind. Well, the revolutionary movement in general, north and south. It was very strong in Mexico City; it was very strong all over, and very active in the north. @@@@@@@ skip 2344:

Mr. Kearful. What instances ?

Mr. Lind. In Oaxaca, toward the Isthmus, near Cuernavaca. They were streaming through Mexico to Vera Cruz every day.

Mr. Kearful. I think the committee would like to have specific instances, because we never heard of that before.

Mr. Lind. This was six or seven years ago, and I can not give you names or the dates. These things are reported pretty fully in my official roports. I kept no record except the reports that I made to the department from day to day.

Mr. Kearful. Did you come to the conclusion upon the informa tion that you obtained that the salvation of Mexico depended upon the success of the revolutionary movement instituted by Carranza ?

Mr. Lind. No. I came to the conclusion that the only salvation of Mexico depended upon a new regime, in which some of the existing abuses would be eradicated, in which the people would be afforded an opportunity to attend schools, and in which some of the blessings that other peoples enjoyed would be given them to enjoy. I did not feel that Carranza or any individual or any group of individuals could bring a millenium in Mexico, nor do I feel now that any man or set of men can restore — they can not restore any good conditions because the conditions have always been bad, but I do not feel now that any individual or any set of men can give the Mexican people ideal con ditions, ideal government, or absolute peace and plenty as the people might enjoy in a country as rich as that. It will take decades and generations for the people to develop into self-governing, intelligent citizens.

Mr. Kearful. But in the existing condition as you found it, did you believe that that movement of Carranza was the first step toward that result?

Mr. Lind. I did, and I do now.

Mr. Kearful. Was it your belief that if that revolutionary move ment failed, that intervention by this country in Mexico would be inevitable?

Mr. Lind. I think I had that fear, but my conviction was that if that revolutionary movement failed it would be followed by another until the conditions that inevitably caused revolutions were cured or removed at least in part.

Mr. Kearful. Have you not often expressed it. as your firm con viction and have you not stated it to me that it was Carranza or intervention ? -

Mr. Lind. I think I have — I think I have — not Carranza as an individual, but he

Mr. Kearful. As typifying a cause ?

Mr. Lind. As typifying a cause, the movement.

Mr. Kearful. In reference to the proposition of recognizing Car ranza as the head of the dc facto government of Mexico, did you not take the position that unless Carranza wore recognized intervention would be inevitable ?

Mr. Lind. I think so. I was anxious to see Carranza recognized as soon as there was tolerable peace in Mexico, as there was at the time he was recognized, for two reasons: I felt that that was the only hope in the situation at that time, and I felt also that in view of the European war, which had begun, and in which I felt certain we would

@@ bbbbb 2346:

Mr. Kearful. In the fall of 1914 when you wrote the address which is published in the booklet referred previously, Mexico City had then been in the hands of the constitutionalists for several months. Carranza entered Mexico City early in August, 1914. Previously other important towns had been taken. On page 22 of the booklet you make this statement: Mexico has not enjoyed more than eight years of real self-government in the whole life of the nation. But here also the indications are promising.

Mr. Lind. Yes. Mr. Kearful (reading): "The discipline and restraint shown by the victorious constitutional armies and their chiefs were most creditable and oncouraging. " Were you present in any of the cities that were taken by the victorious constitutional army?

Mr. Lind. No, I was not.

Mr. Kearful. You had no opportunity personally to observe their actions so as to judge whether they exercised discipline and restraint and whether that was creditable and encouraging?

Mr. Lind. No, but I still would use that same language when you reflect on what occurred by people very much more cultured and disciplined, as we supposed, in the late European war. You must bear in mind that in the Mexican armies perhaps 90 per cent of the soldiers are utterly illiterate and without any civilizing antecedents or discipline. When they enter victoriously into a city the size of Mexico City or any of the other large cities in the Mexican nation, one would naturally expect very great and very flagrant excesses and outrages. I have no doubt that there were excesses.

Mr. Kearful. Would you expect that those excesses would be committed by the leaders of the army as an example to the men ?

Mr. Lind. No; we would not expect it, and still those things hap- gened in the war, if the reports that we had from the occupation of elgium and northern France are to bo believed. Mr. Kearful. Do you know Manuel Calero, who was foreign min ister under Madero and afterwards ambassador ?

Mr. Lind. I only know of him. I never met him, but I am familiar with his name.

Mr. Kearful. Do you know his reputation as a Mexican of stand ing or not ?

Mr. Lind. I do not recall very distinctly, but I have no recollection that I heard him spoken of as a vicious man.

Mr. Kearful. He was one of the ardent supporters of Madero and is now exiled from the country.

Mr. Lind. I recall him. He passed through Vera Cruz and was conducted to Vera Cruz. I recall him now. No; I never heard him spoken of except highly.

Mr. Kearful. Did you ever read a book written by him in 1916 entitled "The Moxican policy of President Woodrow Wilson as it appears to a Mexican ?"

Mr. Lind. I have not read it.

Mr. Kearful. In that book he refers to what occurred in Mexico City at the time of the entry of the victorious constitutionalist's army thero.

Mr. Lind. But he was not there. He was not an eyewitness. @@ 2347: Mr. Kearkul. On page 31 of that book he said: What happened then is something that the American Government has not dared to publish. The few honorable constitutionalists shudder to recall it. The Depart ment of State has in its archives the official information of the outrages committed by the so-callel constitutionalists in the great capital of Mexico. Never had the city suffered such indignities, not even in the blackest days of our revolutionary life. Even the diplomatic representatives of the foreign Governments were robbed by the Carranza "generals " and bv the mob of ravenous politicians that followed. Even the Brazilian minister, official representative of the United States, was robbed. Again, on page 78, speaking of the same subject, Mr. Calcro says: The revolutionists entered a place, and the inhabitants, terrorized, shut them selves up in their houses, concealed their wives and their daughters to save them from the lust of those ferocious beasts, and concealed their properties to save them from pillage. In the great cities there were customarily acclamations and friendly receptions for the victors, inspired more by fear of being considered unfriendly than by a legitimate enthusiasm, but nowhere was seen the popular effort to draw from that triumph any advantages for the effectiveness of the public liberties. Martial law was the form in which the revolutionary authority was exercised. The military tribunal, without law, and arbitrary, substituted the civil tribunal; the military commander took the place of the municipal council; the military governor that of the civil governor of the State, and the "first chief" substituted the president of the Republic, the Congress, and the Federal courts of justice. On page 62 he gives an account of what occurred after the break between Villa and Carranza, as follows: Those combatants did not appear to fight against their enemies, but against the immense pacific population. Everyone who may have followed the changes of this drama knows the infinite number of attacks upon the honor of women, upon religion, upon property, and upon life. A savage struggle in which the Vaquis, barbarous and sanguinary, who formed a part of the hosts of Carranza. the criminals, taken from all the prisons, the Mexican Indian, ignorant and avid for blood and rapine, who formed the bulk of the combatants, satisfied their instincts of bestial ferocity at the expense of 15,000,000 of human beings. Hunger and pestilence increased the ravages of war. The military chiefs made scandalous fortunes, and what they did not appropriate to themselves was sent to the United States to the voracious speculators, who were paid with the bread and tears of the Mexican people for the arms and ammunition which sustained that infernal conflict. Read the reports of the Red Cross; examine the official data with which the Depart ment of State is stuffed, and it will bo seen that while thousands of women and children were dving for lack of food, cargoes of corn, beans, of live stock, and all that could satisfy hunger went out of the Mexican parts and of the frontier cities to be converted into rifles and cartridges, into instruments of destruction. Did you ever hear any of those accounts ?

Mr. Lind. There are undoubtedly instances or occurrences that justify an indictment: not such as that. I think that is a very extreme, partisan statement even of the excesses that are always incident to the advance of a victorious army of that character. Mr. KEARFrr.. You can not say that of your own personal knowledge ?

Mr. Lind. No: and neither could he, because ho was not there any more than I was.

Mr. Kearful. Witnesses who have heretofore tastifiod before the committeo wore there and substantiated the statement. Are you prepared to say they are mistaken 1

Mr. Lind. No, but I think many of them aro prejudiced.

Mr. Kearful. Or that they have testifiod falsely 1

Mr. Lind. I would not say that they havo testified falsely, but the main difference was in tho construction that thoy put upon the

@ 2348 incidents happening in times of stress. For instance, Mr. Murray, whom you know vory well, who had beon a reporter for the New York World in Mexico City for years and yeafs, one of the most intelligent men that I have known in Mexico, told me some three or four yoars ago, when I met him here in the city of Washington, that what astounded him more than anything else was the discretion exorcised by those victorious armies that occupied Mexico City from time to time. Ho said even Zapata and his followers did not cause the de vastation nor the hardships that were anticipated. Evorybody ex pected that if Zapata and his followers entered Mexico City the whole population would be robbed. He said there wore instances of that character, but on the whole the'entry and the occupation was much more orderly than he had ever anticipated. Ho spoke tho same way about tho entrance of tho Constitutionalists.

Mr. Kearful. It is undoubtedly true that Zapata, when he en tered Mexico City, surprised evorybody and kept order, and under took to and did return to the owners of property such articles as could be found that had been stolen from them by tho forces of Carranza previous to his evacuation, but I was speaking of the Constitutionalist armies. Mr. Lino. Ho was speaking of them also. He was an eyewitness to all occurrences, and he expressed great surprise that the excesses wore not groator and worse than they were.

Mr. Kearful. Did you ever hear about tho occupation of houses in Mexico City by Carranza's generals and the looting of those houses ?

Mr. Lind. I hoard about houses being commandeered for tho use of the officers in the army.

Mr. Kearful. You understand, as a lawyer, that tho word "com mandeer" moans to take property and pay for it, do you not?

Mr. Lind. Not at the time, not payment at tho timo. I never know a government or an army to do that except, possibly, out in the field whoro generals sometimes have cash. But our Government, when it commandeered during the last war, took possession of such houses, and such ships, and such instrumentalities as it required, and has not paid for them to-day.

Mr. Kearful. Do you understand that was tho process followed by Carranza and his generals in Mexico City and other places? Mr. Lind. Not in the same orderly way, I do not imagine. You can not judge of the Mexicans by our standards and do them justice You can not expect that they will carry on a Government or carry on activities of any kind in as orderly a way as we would and do. That is what I mean.

Mr. Kearful. What were the creditable and encouraging acts that you had in mind when you wrote the statement referred to?

Mr. Lind. I can not recall now just what I had in mind when I used that language, but the whole situation to me looked promising and it has continued to do so until this present unfortunate election eering contest that is in progress.

Mr. Kearful. Do you mean that it was creditable a id encouraging to you that they did not commit anv greater excesses than were actually committed { You expected them to Mr. Lind (interrupting). No; I did not expect, but I feared that there would be greater excesses than anv committed, and I often discussed that with Consul Canada. I will sav here that is the fear

2080 etc The Chairman. Certainly. This is an official declaration in writ ing, and the declaration on which some of our ministers are relying is only a verbal declaration by Mr. Carranza or Mr. Osuna, or some other authority, not put in writing. Now, shall I return this article to you, or may I have it translated ? Mr. Brown. You may have it. The Chairman. The translation of the article above referred to follows: (The document last above mentioned is in words and figures as follows, to wit:) [Translation of clipping from El Democrata, of Paebla, dated Dec. 13, 191 .] THOSE CLERGYMEN Will BE CONSIDERED PERNICIOUS WHO ABE OF FOREIGN NATION ALITY AND' EXERCISE THEIR MINISTRY IN MEXICO. Manuel Aguirre Berlanga, subsecretary of state In charge of the department of the interior, sent to all the governors of States the following important circular telegram on the 6th of this month : " Considering that article 130 of the general constitution of the Republic provides that only native Mexicans may exercise the ministry of any cult (denomination), and in view of the fact that a great number of foreign clergy men, in violation of this proscription, are executing the various acts which constitute the exercising of the ministry of their respective religions — " By order of the Citizen President of the Republic I hereby Instruct yon to inform all foreign clergymen who are practicing their profession in your State that unless they immediately cease all such practices the executive of the Union will consider them violators of Mexican constitutional law and apply to them the thirty-third article of the constitution as pernicious aliens. " Manuel Agutrre Berlanga, " Subsecretary of State in Charge of the Department of the Interior." Mr. Brown. Now, I have here a number of interesting things to show you, some of which I have cut out and saved from different papers to show the conditions down there. Here is one about the burning or attempted burning of the Queretaro Boys' School, a Methcdist institution in Queretaro. It is from the Record of Chis- tian Work. You can have that if you want it. The Chairman. I will ask the reporter to copy this, It will be marked " No. 2." The Queretaro Boys' School Is attached to the American Methodist Mission in Mexico. Queretaro, a great Roman Catholic center, has been roughly treated by the Carrancistas, who burned confessionals and otherwise showed their hatred of Mother Church. When they were compelled to evacuate. Mother Church took her revenge, not on the hostile Mexican faction, but upon the American mission. A mob, 3,000 strong, shouted, " Long live religion ! Death to the Protestants !" broke into the schools, tore organs, benches, and pulpit into the street to a bonfire, heaped them with armfuls of books, clothing, dishes, household linen, and piled shavings and kindlings to fire the building, when, presto ! a townsman not connected with the mission shot a rifle into the air and the whole cowardly pack vanished like coyotes. They abandoned the banner which they carried. Its staff proved to be the pole of a baldachin borne in the Catholic processions of the town and witnessed to the authoritative inspiration of the proceedings. — Record of Christian Work. Mr. Brown. I have here a statement of Kev. A. H. Sutherland, dated September 4, 1916, about the terrible conditions he found there when he went down to Queretaro. One is in English and one in Span ish. I have another statement by a missionary down there in Mexico — he is still there, sp I didn't mention his name, saying that— this was in 1919.

@@@@ 1995 begin slattery' http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=hWBUAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA1995 THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1920. United States Senate, Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, D. C. Testimony taken at Washington, D. C, April 1, 1920, by Francis J. Kearful, Esq., in pursuance of an order of the subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL J. SLATTERY. (The witness was duly sworn by

Mr. Kearful.)

Mr. Kearful. Please state your full name. Mr. Slattery. Michael J. Slattery.

Mr. Kearful. What is your present place of residence? Mr. Slattery. 830 North Sixty-third Street, Philadelphia.

Mr. Kearful. Are you an American citizen? Mr. Slattery. Yes, sir. Mr. Kearful. Where were you born? Mr. Slattery. Philadelphia.

Mr. Kearful. What is your profession? Mr. Slattery. I am a mine operator.

Mr. Kearful. What opportunities have you had to observe con ditions in Mexico? Mr. Slattery. Recently?

Mr. Kearful. At any time. Mr. Slattery. First of all, my close contact with the people: I went into Mexico in March, 1901, coming out when we were forced out by the invasion of Vera Cruz by the United States Government, in April, 1914. Living all those years in Mexico gave me a splendid opportunity of knowing the people, becoming acquainted with them, their customs and mode of living; and, after my coming out of Mexico, keeping up the friendship with most of the friends that I bad made down there. I think, therefore, I am in a position to say that I know something of Mexico.

Mr. Kearful. What was your business in Mexico ? Mr. Slattery. My business was being engaged in mining.

Mr. Kearful. In what part of the country? Mr. Slattery. I was in charge of many operations in the State of Zacatecas, the State of Colima, and the State of Jalisco, particularly Jalisco. I was in charge of a number of big properties down there, and not only in charge of a number of properties, but I owned con- sidsrable property of my own.

@@@@ 2024 fee simple every piece of property I have in Mexico, if you can find any part of my story that is not absolutely true, or is in any way exaggerated." And I remember him also saying, " And yet we thought we knew something of conditions in Mexico." "VVe left him, and went to Congressman Mondell, who also received us very cordially and very patiently. He listened to our whole story, and the first question he asked was, " Is your story before the State Department? " We said, '; No; they won't listen to us." He said, " Well, you must get it before the State Department." I said, " I will never go back to the State Department." He said, " You must do it, because when one gets on the floor of Congress and they are asking questions about this or that, some one will raise the point and ask us if the State Department knows about this. It will be difficult to do anything with it, if this matter is not in the hands of the State Department." And it was for that reason that that story was written, that has never seen the light of day, that has been buried in the archives over there. And that was sent to Mr. Bryan. I took it to him personally, so as to give it to Mr. Bryan personally. He refused to see me, and I had to give it to his secretary. He took it, and I was com pelled to write to get an acknowledgement of it. It was after that that Senator Borah delivered that famous speech of his in the United States Senate, when he recalled some of the incidents that are recited in our story. One particular thing was that any flag that flies in the air that does not respect its citizens is nothing but a dirty rag and should be hauled down. That speech put hope into every American in Mexico that there was at least one man who was willing to believe our side of the case. I suppose the newspapers will understand what I mean when I say this. It is not out of criticism of the press, but it seemed to me that even the press got a mistaken notion of it. They looked upon us, whether the articles were inspired or not, as if we were just so much riffraff. Let me illustrate what I mean. The late Richard Harding Davis, the novelist, was sent to Mexico as a special newspaper writer to tell of the conditions in and around Vera Cruz. The articles written by Mr. Davis would always wind up: "This is the story of a refugee, and you can take it for what it is worth." It was that sting, it was that insinuation, that when an American in Mexico related his experience it was something you could take for what it was worth. Yet four days after he wrote that kind of an article he was caught himself. Here is an article ho wrote, and if you compare his own story, the story he told in his own case, some one could very well say, " This is the story of a special newspaper writer that was sent down there, who has met with the same experience as the Americans who have been down there." I recall also the time of the special newspaper train that came, how a number of newspaper men of the United States accepted the invitation to come down there and see and write up conditions. I remember meeting those gentlemen in Guadelajara, thinking there might be some one from my own home town. I wTent down to see the outfit. I didn't meet anybody I knew, but at the same time I went up and extended them the privilege of coming to our American club and said we would like to have the privilege of

@@ 2025 entertaining them. But the consequence was we were told they were in charge of the Government party and could accept no invita tions. Some of us had been reading some of the truck they had been writing, and we appealed to them to give us a chance and we would tell them some inside stuff. We were adventurers, soldiers of for tune, and all that sort of thing, and no attention was paid to us. And yet, when that same outfit was caught at San Luis Potosi — thnt was the funny thing about it — they were taken around the circle of territory that was not having any trouble, and I volunteered to take them four hours from where we were standing and to show them a real insurrection. Anyhow, going up to San Luis Potosi, a part of the program slipped, and they had a real fight, and these fellows were captured and put in jail and were kept there about a week. I will never forget Leslie's correspondent, in particular, the correspondent of Leslie's Weekly. He was man enough to say that, " All the stuff I have been writing heretofore was simply manufac tured, but had I taken the word of those that were willing to give it to me I could have written as I am writing now." From that time on he commenced to tell it, but it took that experience for him to get started right. Another thing that is running through my mind. The curious thing of the whole thing has been the attitude of the American people toward this situation. We did not expect to be wined and dined or to be made heroes of, but yet when the real story is written you will find there were some boys down there who did deeds of valor far better than some for which the award of Congress was given, and they have never been recognized. And instead of being treated as common, ordinary, everyday citizens, we were looked upon as trouble makers. You are the ones that nre causing the trouble. You fellows own oil lands, the mines, the investments there. You are stirring up trouble. You want your Government to go In there and do all this. You are nothing but troublemakers and we have no time for you, and our flag does not follow investments anyhow. You ought to have stayed back in your own country. I will never forget one visit in New York in 1914, and T had with me Jim Gibson, one of the greatest sheriffs that the Texas southwest ever had. a man that is in his seventies now, a man that has seen all the things I am telling you, a man of wonderful reputation, and a man who was with me in Mexico, lived with me. We were in New York with our committee, and we had Jim. We went out to have lunch. It was around 3 o'clock. The first thing we knew they com menced to dance. That was something new to me — dancing at 3 o'clock in the afternoon — and I called the waiter over. I had been out of the country a long time. I said to him, " What is this going on here? Dancing right in the middle of the floor of the restaurant, and at 3 o'clock in the afternoon?" He looked at me as if I was some horrible example escaped from the asylum, and he said, " This is the business men's dance." I said, "The what?" and he said, "This is vhere these men come out and relax for an hour, from 3 o'clock to 4." Then, when I saw the kind of dancing, not the old-style waltz, but this tangoing, as they call it, I will never forget the remark of Jim Gibson. It was very characteristic, and was a summing up in his mind the attitude of the American people. He said, " By God, the

@@@ 2026 patriotism of the American people has gone to their feet." That is the attitude that Jim took toward that ; that they were not interested, were so mad making money and keeping up with the wild rush of things that they didn't want to be bothered, didn't want to be troubled, didn't want to hear about those troubles the Americans were having down there. So we suffered in silence, and I would like to ask the world if ever in the history of any nation, there has ever been a case where men, women, and children have suffered, suffered in silence, like the Americans in Mexico. My own wife for four years has been under the doctor's care. She lived in Mexico, because she refused to desert me. She wanted to be right with me. She knew my future was tied up in Mexico. She had confidence that my people around me loved me and would take care of me. She suffered there. During the bandit raids time and time again she was in the house when it took place. She saw the horrible way in which these fellows went through the houses and looted and pillaged and destroyed. At different hours of the night she would have to jump up from bed with a rifle in her hand, to be ready to take her stand to help defend the home. She lived through all that. She went through all these conditions from 1910 to 1914. When she came out, as every woman on the ship will tell you, she was practically a mother to everybody, and yet she a young woman. She never went to bed at night on that trip until every body was covered. She never whimpered, never complained, she was always standing beside me in a crisis. The most wonderful woman in the world. • It was not until Villa made his famous raid on New Mexico that she collapsed. Then she repeated to me almost word for word the very same things she said to me in Manzanillo. Going back to that incident, when it looked as if the mob was going to get to us, she said to me. " T beg of you to kill me, and not let me fall into the hands of these people." The night Villa made his raid on New Mexico, she woke up and repeated that same thing, word for word. For four years we have been trying to find something that will cure her — her nerves are shattered. I have had the best doctors I can find, and for four years that woman has been an invalid, the direct result of what she has gone through in Mexico. About the same time President Wilson was stricken last year, she had a cerebral hemorrhage and was unconscious for 41 days. She is slowly recovering from that attack, so you can see what anguish I have suffered, yet I have remained patient and hopeful. Jack Delaney, my superintendent, is to-day the inmate of a sani tarium, an insane asylum, as a direct result of the strain he has been under. Billy Hoeing, another man associated with me, died of a broken heart a few weeks ago, and is now buried in the lonely hills of Mexico. I could go right on down the line showing you that Americans in Mexico have never committed any crimes; they have paid for every thing they got, and their own Government has gotten them into all the troubles that have taken place within the last five or six years and they are passing out one by one.

@@2 2027 Mr. Keahftjx,. Were there a number of other matters subsequent to that time that you have not been able to follow ? Mr. Slattery. Of course, you understand that after my wife was taken sick correspondence practically stopped. My wife corre sponded with almost all these women. Mr. Kxarfttl. Were there a number of women and children in the party? Mr. Slattery. Yes. I have a letter here which I appreciate more than a medal. During those bad days on the ship we had a bulletin board, and on that board we used to put the items of interest. The ladies placed this paper on the board, written and signed by all the women on the ship. It reads: In appreciation : There is no circumstance nor group of circumstances that can show the general character of the dramatis personae more than when sudden action is demanded. We have experienced it ; and the spirit and dis position of the American men was plainly shown. After the quick flight and the strenuous circumstances, when patience, endurance, bravery, diplomacy, and courage were necessary, our men were not found wanting. The women interested are both thankful and grateful from the depths of their hearts that they have men to whom they have looked and have not been disappointed. That was signed by every woman on the ship.

Mr. Kearful. About how many? Mr. Slattern About 125 to 150. We kept quiet, as I said, and suffered in silence and all that sort of thing until after Huerta was overthrown and forced out, and then Mr. Carranza took over the reins of government, and then came these attacks on the churches. I felt then that it was beyond the bound of reason to expect silence any longer. In other words, they were doing some things — making attacks upon churches — which were so vile that any American with red blood in his veins should talk. And I made up my mind that, so far as I was personally concerned, it was immaterial to me what happened to me, and I was going out to tell the story as well as I could. When the raids on the churches took place, I wrote to my agents down there to find out if there was any truth in it. The replies received were to the effect that the churches were closed; that some of the churches — in particular, the cathedral — were used as stables; that they were not only used as stables and barracks, but the beautiful pictures and paintings had been destroyed; that all those beautiful things which Catholics hold near and dear were being desecrated ; that these outrages were being committed on religious orders and sisterhoods. So I made up my mind that if all the teachings that I had learned in my early child hood meant anything to me, it was about time I put some of them into execution ; that above everything else principle stands out in a man's life; that if he is going to be selfish where his own property is concerned, and is going to keep quiet simply because it is going to save himself, then real manhood goes out of a man's life and sel fishness takes it place. I made up my mind, irrespective of what it was going to cost me, I was going to go out on the public platform. And wherever I went I have paid my own car fare and taxi faro and railroad fare and hotel bills; so that no man in public or private life could say I was commercializing the work — getting profit from it. Yet the "Secretary of State never made a speech while he was Secretary of State that he did not collect for so doing.

@@@2 2028 As a consequence, I remember walking into a meeting — I am a Catholic — I remember walking into a meeting of the Federation of Catholic Societies holding a session in Baltimore, and I learned there that even these men did not believe that such things were going on in Mexico. " Well, that is hearsay. That is the word of a refugee." Everybody seemed to just have that opinion of every thing that came from Mexico, that it was nothing but a lot of lies. Even that Federation refused to believe that such things were hap pening down there until I took the liberty of taking the floor. I had no right to be there. I was not a delegate or anything of that sort. I simply told them in my own way some of the things I knew. Then it was that a committee was appointed to see the President, or to convey to the President of the United States that these out rages in Mexico would have to stop, or to ask him to see that they were stopped. Whether any action was ever taken or not I do not know, excepting I was told afterwards that they — these bandits — had the idea that the desecration of these churches was sort of wel comed by the people of the United States, and that was one of the reasons why they were doing it, but just as soon as they got the order to stop, they stopped — or Villa stopped, but Carranza never did stop. And so it was that I invited trouble for myself. I invited denials from the State Department. I invited charges from my own Govern ment, I invited trouble for myself from Mexico, and I am getting it, so far as Mexico is concerned. But I have never had any of my statements denied. AVhether they have read them or not, I do not know, but, thank the Lord, I have always carried my proofs with me. Mr. Kf.ahful. I want to ask you an important question. It was reported at one time in the newspapers that the Carranza soldiers had been guilty of violating the nuns in Mexico, and, as it threatened to become an important part of the campaign issue in 1016, with reference to the party of President Wilson, that statement was denied by Mr. Tumulty, the President's Secretary, upon the author ity of the Catholic archbishop in Mexico. The committee considers that a very important point. Can you undertake to name any wit ness, or procure any witnesses who can testify directly upon that subject? Mr. Slatteisy. I would like to know just what proofs the State Department would call " proofs." Personally, if we get right down to it, personally I never saw an outrage committed. If a man is murdered out there in that corridor, and I am told by somebody around here that that man was murdered. T do not see. the actual killing take place, and yet I see the actual body lying there, and all the evidence pointing to it. I naturally come to the conclusion that the man is dead — is murdered. Now, the thing that gets me raving with the State Department is what the State Department wants, what they call proof. Influential residents of Mexico have time and time again, from all parts of the Eepublic, in writing to me, have written to me of the outrages that happened to the nuns, the sisterhood of Mexico. I think I have a letter with me to-day from the British consul at Guadalajara, reciting in his letter how he escorted the nuns under the protection of the British flag to Manzanillo. Is there anyone who doubts the truth of the stories of the attacks on these nuns?

@@@@@ http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=hWBUAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA2029 2029 Why would they want to fly? Why would they want to leave Guadalajara? I could not go out and put my hands on a sister, one of those saintly sisters, and say that this one or that one was attacked. I can't do anything like that. But, gentlemen, so far as the proof is concerned, to get these saintly women to testify, nothing on earth will ever get them to testify.

Mr. Kearful. That is not necessary, but there must be witnesses in existence who have seen them, and who can testify to these at tacks, to the situation in which they were found, what had happened. If these outrages have been committed on the scale that has been stated, there must be witnesses who can testify to such facts as would render the matter incontrovertible. Mr. Slattery. Then you would either have to get the saintly wo men to do it themselves, or you will have to get some of the cut throats that did it. Then vou will get back to the question, "Can you take the word of a cutthroat?"

Mr. Kearful. Were there no men who saw these women taken out. and saw their condition? Mr. Slattery. Yes.

Mr. Kearful. And knew what had happened to them? Mr. Slattery. Yes. I think if you could get hold of Chaplain Joyce, vou could get some information.

Mr. Kearful. You can perform no greater service to this commit tee than to get some witnesses who will testify to that effect. Mr. Slattery. I will attempt to do it.

Mr. Kearful. I understand Father Joyce was chaplain at Vera Cruz? Mr. Slattery. Yes ; and who received most of the nuns that were coming out. Mr. Kearful. Did you ever apply to the State Department, after the experience fhat you have related, for advice as to going back to Mexico? Mr. Slattery. On several occasions.

Mr. Kearful. It is not necessary to read the correspondence, but give the effect of what occurred. Mr. Slattery. On the 19th day of August I wrote to the State Department, addressing my letter to Mr. Bryan, and asked him if it were possible for us to get passports to go back to Mexico. My correspondence will show, not only the correspondence, but in all my dealings with the State Department, even my reports that are on file, that I never wrote in a fault-finding sort of way ; that it was always for the purpose of helping or assisting. Somehow or other I had the feeling that if we would help those who were in the dark, maybe they would come around some day and give the fellows who are in Mexico a chance to lend them assitance and cooperation. So in my letter of August 19, I asked to go back to Mexico, because of cer tain conditions that prevailed down there. I reiterated these prom ises of being of assistance to them. I received a reply on the 21st of August, in which the department advised that it did not deem it advisable to withdraw the advice previously given to Americans still remaining in Mexico.

@@@ 2030 Shortly after that, on October 28, I wrote again, and I received a reply to the effect that thev were sending a vice consul to make a report on conditions. On November 10 I received a further letter that all the courts, both civil and criminal, had been closed ; that the feeling toward Americans was bad; that minor uprisings were oc curring; that loans were being forced from the inhabitants; that few of the churches had been permitted to reopen during the past two ■weeks; that petty robberies had been numerous; and that martial law prevailed. It does not say, " You can not go back," or " We will give you passports," or anything else. On November 12 I acknowledged the receipt of that letter, stating that I wanted to go back to Mexico, to which I received no reply. I then went down to El Paso and hung around on the line, because our troops were along the border, and I thought if the troops went in I would take the chance and go in with them. I thought I could be of some assistance for the reason I knew the trails, knew the water holes, knew the mountainous country ; and I thought I could perform some act of service and also get into Mexico and see how things were getting on. But, as things were going from bad to worse, I took a chance and went into Mexico myself; and I was caught at Aguas Calientes, at the time Villa had been attacked by Obregon at Celaya, and his en tire forces were on their way north. We were detained at Aguas Calientes and remained there three weeks, could not go south or north. Then we came back to Chihuahua, which is the capital of the State and was Villa's capital. I then came back to El Paso and remained there a while and came home disgusted. On March 11, 1916, I called attention to the new laws that were going into effect, increasing taxes, and which were of confiscatory character. On March 18 I received a reply from the State Depart ment saying that they had repeatedly endeavored to obtain a modifi cation. " Repeatedly endeavored," but they never could say " we bave accomplished it." They were always "endeavoring." We are always in a state of turmoil, so far as this Government is concerned. On September 30, 1916, I wrote again an appeal to them to give me the right to go back to them, and also calling their attention to the fact that they wanted us to resume operations at the mines, and saying we were holding back these operations and keeping many people out of work. We got in touch with the State Department and called attention to it. and the State Department said on October 5, 1916, that the department had sent instructions to its representative in Mexico City directing him to make representations looking to the annulment of this decree. Let me digress for a moment, and say that we were also charged with holding back the economic development, like all Americans were charged with, for the reason that we could not operate if we wanted to operate. We were producing gold. We were 18 hours' ride from the nearest railroad station, out in the heart of the lonely hills, sur rounded by every cutthroat in the country endangering life and property. We appealed time and time again for protection, and it was never given to us. Up until two or three weeks or a month ago the Carranza forces liad never been north of the Santiago River in San Cristobal. That

@@@@ 2031 is between the Zacatecas mine where we were located. We could never get protection. The protection we got would be they would send the soldiers out there, and they would do more damage than good. In fact, I would rather trust a civilian bandit than a soldier bandit. During all these years that we were not in operation I saw to it that our men were fed; that we furnished them with corn. We shipped corn to them and distributed it absolutely gratis. We turned our land over to them and let them raise their own crops on it. So far as I was personally concerned, individually concerned, so far as those I represented were concerned, that has been our policy, to keep the men who worked for us and were loyal to us from starvation.

Mr. Kearful. Is it now possible to operate your property? Mr. Slatteky. Absolutely impossible. My latest advices hist week show they tame out and threatened to burn the mill and destroy the place, and there was a general strap that took place and killed my head miner. There is an element of unrest there. The people have been deprived really of the right to live by the present Government. It is reaching a period where men are fighting for their existence. Now, these men I refer to have been employed at the San Antonio hacienda. Conditions have been so bad there that this year there was no planting. Consequently that spirit of unrest and the bol shevik idea, which is also prevalent in Mexico, is spreading about, and these people came over to our place for the purpose of creating unrest among our people, with the result that our people remained loyal, and a fight took place between them, in which some of our people were killed, principally our head miner, and these other people threatened to come back and destroy the property and the mill. When these facts were laid before the governor he sent a force out there to see that their plans were not carried into execution. Conditions to-day at my mine are worse than they ever were, and are growing worse every day. There is no developing going on. There is not a thing that stands out in the whole Carranza adminis tration that any man can consider as constructive legislation. Every thing has been destructive. He took over the courts, he assumed jurisdiction of the house of congress and of the senate, he controlled the bankers, he closed the banks at his will, he dictated the terms under which you operate, he dictated the policies of the oil com panies, he fixes taxes to suit himself, he fixes the rate of exchange. Let me give you now just a slight sidelight on it. Mexico hasn't any gold to-day, hasn't any reserve. Yet to-day he arbitrarily fixes the rate of exchange. And the rate of exchange to-day in Mexico is such that the American dollar is not worth as much in Mexico as it was in the beautiful and prosperous days of Porfirio Diaz. In other words, the American dollar in the old days was worth two Mexican dollars. To-day you take an American dollar into Mexico, and you have to go to a representative of the Carranza Government who sells the exchange, and he gives you whatever he likes for it, usually $1.80 or $1.90, and then you get Mexican bills. When you take these Mexican bills — for instance, you are operating a mine, and you have to pay in silver, so you have to pay a premium on the silver. These are conditions that are confronting us to-day. There 4766— 20— vol 2 15

@@@@ 2032 is no planting going on, and the people are coming from the moun tains, from the valleys, and crowding into the cities, and the result is that every day those conditions are growing worse and worse.

Mr. Kearful. What prospect do you see for any improvement? Mr. Slattery. There will never be any improvement while Mr- Carranza is occupying the presidency in Mexico and the present out fit is in power. There is no use of anybody fooling themselves that there will.

Mr. Kearful. What prospect do you see for a change ? Car ranza, in power, can reelect himself or any follower he chooses, can he not? Mr. SixAttery. 1 was going to say intervention, but I hate that word " intervention," for the reason that the people living in Mex ico hate the word " intervention." We Americans sometimes hav£ a peculiar way of expressing ourselves. We do not mean just what we say. Our liberty-loving foreigners in the United States to-day hate the word "Americanization." Yet all of our welfare bodies lay great emphasis on the word "Americanization," when the word should be " citizenship." "Intervention" is meddling in somebody else's affairs. That is what intervention in Mexico means. No matter how poor and illit erate the peon is. he has a certain amount of dignity that he wants 3'ou to respect. When you take that right on up to the better class, you can see how farreaehing that is. So that when you use that word "intervention," jtou are using the wrong word. I woidd say use the word " Mexicanization." Mexicanize Mexico. AYhat have we done, for instance, for the large number of Mexicans that have been forced to flee out of Mexico ? You have neglected us, but what about the Mexicans, themselves, that have been driven out of there because of your policies? These men that I am speaking of are men who have kept Mexico alive in the early days. They represent the arts and literature and science, and so on, and they ruled and ruled well when they were in power.

Mr. Kearful. Is that the class that will have to be depended upon now to stabilize that condition? Mr. Slattery. I would say yes. I would say men like de la Barra, Ahumada, Prieto. These are men whose names come to my mind, and there are numbers of them. The question is asked. Is there anybody in Mexico that is any good? We had good government under Diaz.

Mr. Kearful. You had good government under Huerta? Mr. Slattery. Pretty good government under Huerta, and very good government under de la Barra. We have neglected these Mexicans, and if all this time, instead of trying to "Americanize" them, if we had educated them and put out a program of "Mexi canization." shown our friendship for Mexico — that we had no ulterior object in view — we would have built up an army right here in this country of five or six hundred thousand Mexicans that would fight our battles in Mexico, if we had any battles to fight. In any case, we should "Mexicanize" Mexico by driving out of Mexico the people that are tearing it down, and have driven out of Mexico the traditions for which the Mexican people have always stood. Carranza, with his highfaluting ideas; Carranza is an agnostic; Carranza is a foe of education. When he was governor of the State 2033 ammoammo of Coahuila, can anybody show where he ever spent a nickel for education in that State? Can anybody show where he ever spent a nickel as President of the Mexican Republic for education, or has ever done anything for education? Yet that fellow can go out and make these speeches and he gets away with it. Look at the men lie is surrounded with, living on the fat of the land. They don't care a damn for the Mexican people or Mexican conditions. Every one of them is getting rich. If they can't do it honestly, they will do it dishonestly. That is the kind of people we have running things down there. What we should do, if you ask me for a remedy, what I believe should be done, the first thing I would suggest would be that we close with that fellow, bring that fellow up to a sharp turn, and tell him "You can't slap us in the face any longer; you can't spit in our face any longer. AVe have been good friends of yours and tried to help you, and you have discredited us on every occasion. If you expect support from this Government it is time for you to show some respect." If he refuses, I would close every port of entry and every customhouse he has. Then, second, I would seize on deposit in this country the money that he has in the banks of this country. I think there is the greatest weapon. I know how those bandit leaders used to come across the line and make deposits right in the banks along the Rio Grande of their stolen plunder. There ought to be some agency of the Government that could find out where the money on deposit that belongs to these fellows in every bank in the United States, and then issue an order: "If you don't do so and so, if you don't respect law and order, we will take away from you ever\* dollar you have on deposit in the United States." Then you will be talking a language they will understand mighty quick. Refuse to let out of Mexico any of the stolen plunder and don't permit it to come into this country. One of the reasons why the Villa and Carranza rule kept up so long was because there was so much loot, and they could take it out of Mexico and bring it over and sell it on this side of the line. Keep them from having a market for everything they steal, and they will soon stop that. Then I think all shipments of arms and ammunition should be stopped, not only from the United States, but not let it go through any port. Pick out a man of the de la Barra type, and get behind him and support him. Ignore all present factions. Forget there are such individual groups as Villistas, Felieistas, Carrancistas, Obregonistas, cut out all the " istas," the same as we should cut out all of the " isms " in this country, and deal only with the Mexican people as a people. Do what we did in Cuba and the Philippine Islands. It took Spain 300 years to try to put law and order in Cuba and in the Philippine Islands, and we have done it in the Philippine Islands with less than a brigade of soldiers. In Cuba we all know how we are getting on with that. Select a man, or let the elements in that country get together and let them select the man. Don't let us do the picking, but let them select their man, and then give to that man the support that we have given to these other fellows. Take away from this lawless element, claiming to represent authority, their guns and pistols and rifles, and give these 16,000,000 people a chance to say " You have no longer

@@@@@ 2034 the biulge of authority. You can no longer shoot me on the street, no longer enter my home and defile it." Give these people that have never had a chance, give them a chance, and you will find that there is a solution of the difficulty in Mexico. And should we have to go in there with an armed force, you will find that it is a mistaken impression that it is going to take a half million men five years because of the bandits and the mountainous country. You will find that it is simply a myth. You will find, like Pershing found, when it was said, when he went in supposedly for Villa, that the people would rise up against him, you will find as he found that the peons came and helped to build the road, the peons came and helped to find the waterholes; after the first scare they came and offered assistance, and that is what you will find from the rank and file of the Mexican people.

Mr. Kearful. Is it your view that this country is under the duty to the Mexican people to drive out the bandits, as you call them, who are now in power, because we are responsible for their being in power ? Mr. Slattert. More so than ever, because of that very reason. We forced it on the Mexican people. We forced upon the Mexican people Carranza and all his clans, and in doing so we are directly responsible for everything that has happened down there under Carranza. If we have made a mistake, don't let us keep on trying to cover it up, but let us be men, let us be real men. let us come out and say we have made that mistake. I think the man is a big man when he finds he has made a mistake if he will come out and say so. The whole world knows we have made a mistake, and what is the use of bluffing and camouflaging? Why don't we come out and say we have made a mistake with this fellow and we are going to undo what we have done; that we are going to help them get a stable government, going to lend them money, going to make up for the mistakes we have made, going to get them back on their feet just a9 quick as we can, and then you will find a solution of this problem. I am speaking as an American citizen; I am speaking as a man who loves the Mexican people; I am speaking as a man who has had thousands of their men in his employ and under him. I have ridden over the best part of the Mexican Kepublic on horseback. I have mingled with the people and know their condition. They have trusted me and I have in every way tried to be worthy of that trust. When I am denouncing and condemning and criticizing conditions in Mexico I am not condemning and criticizing and damning the Mexican people, this 16.000,000; I am damning the group that I call bandits, whether they wear the uniform of Carranza or Villa or any other kind of uniform, that are going around preaching and yelling about " Libertad y constitucion " and " Viva la Republica," and all that sort of thing. Mr. Kearfui-. And " Mexico for the Mexicans " ? Mr. Slattery. " Mexico for the Mexicans." I am speaking as one who is interested in the development of that country. We have been paying too much attention, perhaps, to our commercial relations with the other side of the world, when the treasure house of the world is at our back door, looking at it from a commercial standpoint. What have we clone to develop those commercial relations? We have slapped them in the face prior to this. And now we have become the

@@@@@ great bestbest 2035 man with the big stick and say, " This is our man. He is going to sit in this chair, and he is going to represent you." And the result has been that Mr. Carranza, our hand-picked candidate, at every turn has slapped the United States Government in the face, and he never goes out of his way to do it, either.

Mr. Kearful. What do you understand to be the real meaning of the Carranza slogan, " Mexico for the Mexicans " ? Mr. Slattery. Please don't ask me to interpret any of his utter ances.

Mr. Kearful. Well, judging from his acts? Mr. Slattery. Judging from my experience with Mr. Carranza, I would say that anything any foreigner has or possesses in Mexico belongs to the Mexicans. Therefore, "Mexico for the Mexicans." Take it away from them. If he has no right to take it away under the law, he will decree it. That would be my interpretation, from mv own experience. "Mr. Kearful That is "Mexico for the Mexicans," as applied to you and other foreigners? Mr. Slattery. Yes, sir.

Mr. Kearful. Is there anything further you care to state? Mr. Slattery. I think that covers the story pretty well. So far as I am personally concerned, I want to feel that my visit here to Washington to-day has done two things, and it is really after all what I am most interested in : I hope my story to-day will have some effect, as I feel it my duty to my Government to come here and testify, notwithstanding what the consequences might be to me, as far as my property relations are concerned in Mexico. I feel very strongly that obligation. And the second reason why I am glad to come here is that I hope I have thrown some light on the situation, so far as the Mexican people themselves are concerned. I am interested in their welfare, and I hope any words of mine may be a beacon of hope to them that there are some Americans still alive to-day that appreciate their plight, and that some day that hope will be further kindled in the American Nation, as a Nation, and will recognize that a grave injustice has been done, and will right that injustice. Air. Kearful. I want to assure you that the committee greatly appreciates the spirit of real Americanism you have shown in coming before it to testify. It is a spirit that has been shown by very few of those who are interested in Mexico, and who have placed their material interests before their feeling as an American. I want to thank you very much for it. Mr. Slattery. I thank you. I say, I have hopes that some day everything will come around all right. I have come here with a full knowledge of what I am doing, and what it means, and what I am going to be up against if I ever go back into Mexico. If these words of mine to-day will be the means of creating a different spirit, and will give, not only to Americans in Mexico the chance they are looking for, biit will also help to save Mexico from the cut-throats (hat are now ruining its very life, I will feel that my visit has not been in vain. (Whereupon, at 2 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned.)


Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured in the Los Angeles Daily News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 TV Los Angeles, The Press Enterprise, LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened.com, Infowars.com, PrisonPlanet.com, Economic Policy Journal, FreedomsPhoenix, Haaretz, TMZ, Veterans Today, Jonathan Turley blog, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show, National Motorists Association, RomanCatholicReport.com, WorldNetDaily, OverdriveOnline.com, Educate-Yourself.org, Dr. Kevin Barrett's Truth Jihad radio show, Strike-The-Root.com, ActivistPost.com, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI AM 640, IamtheWitness.com, Redlands Daily Facts, BlackBoxVoting, The Michael Badnarik Show, The Wayne Madsen Report, Devvy.com, Rense.com, The Contra Costa Times, Pasadena Star News, Silicon Valley Mercury News, Long Beach Press Telegram, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, L.A. Harbor Daily Breeze, CopBlock.org, DavidIcke.com, Whittier Daily News, KCLA FM Hollywood, The Fullerton Observer, Antiwar.com, From The Trenches World Report, and many others. Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com and DontWakeMeUp.Org.

web analytics