tionary authorities. Later, the representatives of other nations, among them England, Guatemala and Spain, also left the country because they were held to be enemies of the revolution, while the representative of Brazil was accused of reactionary tendencies just at the moment when he was leaving to report to the Government of the United States as to his conduct of affairs while representing this latter nation. Diplomatic amenities were dispensed with; all were treated as if Dr. Francia had held the portfolio of Foreign Affairs. And if this was the fate of representatives accredited to Mexico, what was not the lot of the ordinary citizens of these countries, whose governments, on account of the state of war, could not give the necessary protection to their nationals? We do not deny that in certain cases the conduct of the above-mentioned diplomatic representatives may, at times, have been irregular, but, be this as it may, the action of the Constitutionalist government was, because of its display of brute force, both unwise and impolitic. On the other hand, it is our opinion that the majority of cases of the expulsion of foreigners was justified; which was not the case, however, with that of the nationals, some of whom were driven out under most infamous conditions.
"It is proper to recall that by virtue of, 'might is right' theory, the properties of many foreigners were seized, many of them being still administered by the government, now ruled by a political constitution which the Constitutionalists saw fit to impose upon the nation. The protests, covering each and every one of these acts, on file in our Department, will have to be drawn out of the pigeon-holes into which they have
