governments with diplomatic complications as a result. If the executive kept an effective control over the courts, such unfortunate circumstances could be avoided. The traditional policy of concentration of power, so far as it affected the courts, could be bolstered evidently with arguments of a concrete character. To the end of the Diaz régime the often promised freedom of the judiciary remained an unrealized ideal.
The fact is, then, that the government of Mexico, when it has deserved that name, has been an executive government. When the executive has been responsbile and has had effective control, life and property for citizens and foreigners have been safe. If the executive has become irresponsible, life and property have been insecure. When the executive has lost control, Mexico has become a geographical expression and not a government.[1]
- ↑ An article describing the development of executive control in the Gonzalez period is found in the Nation, vol. 34, p. 399, May 11, 1882. The executive influence exercised in modifying the constitution before the last election of Diaz is described in the Nation, vol. 78, p. 448, June 9, 1904.
