individual initiative and to encourage Indians to become citizens of the republic, with rights and responsibilities similar to those of the more enterprising classes, failed. The lands were sold and the native, who formerly had, in his communal rights, at least a claim on a living of the standard to which he had been accustomed for generations, was thrown on the community landless and dependent.
The policy that resulted in this state of affairs has been condemned both in and out of Mexico and the revolution favored attempts in all parts of the country to restore the old status. Such steps have not succeeded. It is seldom possible, after any important change in social or economic relations, to turn back the clock and start anew. It is very doubtful whether it would be to the advantage of Mexico to reestablish any large portion of the Indian population on a communal basis of life. Land is never used to advantage, at least under modern conditions, where it is held in that way. Other countries, notably the United States, have made similar errors in trying to shift the indigenous populations too rapidly from the old to a new standard of life, but the step once taken can not be retraced. The failure to surround the elimination of the ejidos with proper safeguards has complicated the Mexican land problem, yet former conditions can not be restored by any legislative act.
In its desire to encourage the development of its agricultural resources Mexico found itself at the winning of Independence in a peculiar position. It had large extents of public land, at least land that belonged tech-
