we find in the United States, inasmuch as it is itself a strong presumption of guilty partnership in that slavery and despotism. What publication or individual in the United States, pray you, was ever known to defend the system of political oppression in Russia? What publication or individual in the United States was ever known to excuse the slave atrocities of the Congo Free State? How many Americans are in the habit of singing paeans of praise to Czar Nicholas or the late King Leopold?
Americans of whatever class not only do not dare to do these things, but they do not care to do them. But what a difference when it comes to Mexico! Here slavery is sacred. Here autocracy is deified.
It will not do to deny the honesty of the comparison between Mexico and Russia or the Congo. For every worshipper of Diaz knows that he is an autocrat and a slave-driver and enough of them admit it to leave no ground for doubt that they know it.
What, then, is the reason for this strange diversion of attitude? Why do so many prostrate themselves before the Czar of Mexico and none prostrate themselves before the Czar of Russia? Why is America flooded with books hailing the Mexican autocrat as the greatest man of the age while it is impossible to buy a single book, regularly published and circulated, that seriously criticizes him?
The inference is inevitable that it is because Diaz is the Golden Calf in but another form, that Americans are profiting by Mexican slavery and are exerting themselves to maintain it.
But there are easily provable facts that carry us far beyond any mere inference, however logical it may be.
What is the most universal reply that has been made to my criticisms of Mexico and Mexico's ruler? That
