Arizona weekly citizen., 1883-09-29


 by repunting an article of Mir. Fran cisco c. Palacio, Governor of Durango, published many years ago. Mir. Hall replied in the Mexican Financier observing the lege validity of some of the laws cited in MT. Palacio's opinion We make an abstract of the substantial statements for the benefit of our English resders.-El COrreo de Las Doce.
 GOV. PALACIo's OPINION. 1. Foreigners residing in the Re public of Mexico, may acquire all kind of landed property, including mines of every description, by the same titles that the evil laws establishes for Mexi. can citizens.
 2 The exceptions 10 the rule are:
 A. That to acquire land situated twenty leagues or less from any frontier Of the Republic, foreigner must obtain the permission of the President.
 B. No foreigner can acquire real estate situated within five leagues or less of the coast line of the Republic not even with ths Presidents permis- sion, uDless by special law.
 C. No foreigner, born or naturalized in Q country bordering on the Republic, can acquire public lands by "denounce- meut,' when said lands are situated ID a State or Territory bordering on 1t. 3rd 4 foreigner loses all right to landed property he may have acquired n the Repubhc:
 4. By absenting himself with his family from the country for two years, without gubernamental permission. Ex- c-pt the case Of mines, which may be re- tained even m absence.
 B. B. residing permanently out of the Republic, even when the owner leaves a representative or attorney with flil rights Co act for him. Mines ure not included.
 C. By transferring the property, by inheritance, sale or any other title, 10 luy person not residing ID the Republic. Mines are excepted. In all of these cases. the property must be sold and tn product of the sale, minus a deduction ai ten Der cent. delivered to the former owner
 D. By not maintaining, on territory acquired by Announcements" as public land which In no case must be more than 2J,0QO hectares (EbOut 2i acres eacbl to each "deaouncer" one lnhablt- ant for each two hundred hectares of .ts extension, SO that the land may be inhabited at least 10 that extent for four months m Oue year.
 l. Inc responsibilities of the acquisi- ron of real estate by foreigners in the Republic of MexlcO are:
 
 selves to the laws in force or which may be elaciei respecting the holding, transfer, Use and improvement of prop erty, uud submission to the judgments fl the Mexican tribunals Tn everything relating To it.
 5. The obligation to pay all lawful taxes on the property.
 C. To aid personally and with his means Iu preserving order and security Iu the place where he may reside, ex- elusive however, of disturbances caused by political revolutions or civil war.
 D. The duties of a Mexican citizen which th foreigner becomes on acquir- ing real estate. unless he declares before hand his wish to preserve hls national Ity.
 FROM MR WALLPAPERS LETTER.
 The eruiite article which Mir. Hall has since published in the Mexican Eiuancier has not altered my former opinion, and as fully as 1t may be done ID letter, l will give you the reasons which uphold It. This lawyer maintains that the laws Of the 1lth of March, lS42, 3Jth of January, 1854, aud lst Of February, 1856, have no force, because neither Santa Ana nor COmonfOrI, who aspeetiyely issued them. had any legal authlrIZatl n to do SC. But Mir Hall goes even further. for he asserts that if at any time those laws could have been ID force, they are uullitied now by the cOustltutI Iu which IS the supreme law. ] uI-s-1t with regret from thIs view, be- cause, In my opinion, that fundamental law dId not give foreigners more rights than MeZlcaus, nor aid lt limit the plwers Ui the government to protect its citizens, even Tn foreign countries, nor much less deprive the Republic of any means of defense which international Jaw sanctions. Many times have heard Article ANNIII of the Constitu- ,Ian interpreted ID the sense that for e-Euers have equal rights with the MeIi- caus, wItb whom, under certain circum- stances. they are placed on an equality, but in few cases nave l seen attention fixed on the final c.ause of that article winch cnufers those rights on the con- dIton that the duties of each are alike. including the understanding that the foreigner shall not appeal for any other protection than that which the laws |. N C We're to have the same guarantees us a native and at the same time privileges, such as that Of diplomatic intervention, for example, the absurdlty would fol- low that the legal position of the for eIgner ln this country would be better than that of a native. and that the Con stitutIon had degraded Mexican citizen ship by making 1t inferior to that of any other country. Notwithstanding that this law IS SO liberal in regard to foreigners that very few countries can show anything like 1t, no one should coustrue its liberal spirit ID such man her Hs to make 1t reach the absurdity l have just indicated. q And son are aware that in the Ameri- can Union itself several states still pre- serves the old English legislation which prohibits the foreigner from possessing landed property Of this truth compar- atiTe legislation gives testimony. If Mexico could not establish limitations on this point: # she could not uphold international comlty, or employ Tn her o1yu case the right of retaliation, the iniguitous state of things would fol- low that while Mexicans Tn their own country accord the foreigner the full right to acquire land ed property. and enjoy the same guar antees as themselves, the foreigner ID his country could deny Mexicans with ont remedy or recourse similar rights and guarantees. l cannot comprehend the text of the Constitution in a sense that sanctions such mOnstrous inequal- ity. If the opinion of Mir. Hall, on the unconstItutionality of the laws of lSl2. 1854 and 1856. were cor rect, logic would oblige US to treat in the same way many others whose valid lty DO one up to the present time has Our very Codes, which ac- cept and sanction the principle of recip- rOcity would be unconstitutional. As for example article l3S6 of Civil Code, which puts on an equality Mexican au- thors with those who reside in other na- tiOns. provided such nations make this equality reciprocal; or article 34l3, which prohibits people in the Federal District or Lower California from inher- ilng by will or lab intestato," property of those who according to the laws of theIr own country could not bequeath or leave ''ab iutestato," their property to MexicaDs; or article 495 of the Code of Procedure which makes an exception in the case when the plaintiff Els for eiCner. so that the bond and its form shall be the same as required in this state or nation of citizens of the Dis trict and Territory of Lower California. IL is impossible that there can be any Mexican lawyer who would judge these provisions unconstitutional, even giving all possible elasticity to article NXXIII ,f the Constitution, because that would