Americans who think well of Diaz, and sometimes speak well of him—as distinct from what I have called the "active flatterers"—they have simply been fooled, deceived by the consistent press campaign which the others have kept up for, lo, these many years.
Such American planters as those whom I have quoted as defending the Diaz system of slavery may have been moved by nothing more reprehensible than a desire to prevent my exposures from "hurting the country," or "hurting business," meaning their business. In fact, I was much surprised that so many actual residents of Mexico came forward in support of my statements as did, inasmuch as nearly every American in Mexico has some land which he has obtained for a very low price—or for nothing at all—and which he wishes to sell at a profit. Or he has a stock-selling scheme, in a rubber plantation, for example, with which he is trying to secure the good money of widows and orphans, poor school teachers, small business men and working people. Just as the average American real estate boomer "boosts his town," decries exposures of political corruption as "hurting business," even suppresses news of plague, earthquake fatalities and such things, so the American in Mexico, knowing that exposures of slavery and political instability will frighten away investments and perhaps lose him some profitable deals, seldom hesitates to argue that political and industrial conditions in the country are ideal. The more property a man owns in Mexico the less likely is he to tell the truth about the country.
As to the American publishers, the "business reasons" are usually found either in the interest of the publisher himself in some property or "concession" in Mexico,
