to demand the return of these things. Why do nations universally demand a popular form of government? Never until I saw Mexico did I appreciate to its full the reason why. The answer is that life under any other system is intolerable. The common interests can be conserved only by the common voice. Governments by individuals not responsible to the mass invariably result in robbery of the mass and debasement of the nation. The upbuilding of any people requires certain social guarantees which are not possible except under a government in which considerable numbers take part.
When General Diaz led his army into the Mexican capital back in 1876 he declared himself provisional president. Shortly afterwards he held a pretended election and declared himself constitutional president. By a "pretended election" I mean that he put his soldiers in possession of the polls and prevented, by intimidation, anyone from appearing as a candidate against him. Thus was he "elected" unanimously. And, except for one term, when he voluntarily relinquished the office, he has continued to elect himself unanimously in much the same way.
I do not need to dwell on the election farces of Mexico, since the warmest flatterers of Diaz admit that Mexico has not had one real election during the past thirty-four years. But to those who desire some statement of the matter it will only be necessary to point out the results of the Mexican "elections." Can anyone imagine a nation of some 15,000,000 with, say 3,000,000 persons of voting age, all preferring the same man for their chief executive, not only once, but year after year and decade after decade? Just picture such a condition obtaining in the United States, for example. Could anyone imagine Mr. Taft being re-elected by a unanimous vote? Mr. Roosevelt was undoubtedly the most popular president this
