Bisbee daily review., 1908-06-25
PROPOSED LAW \ B|G ISSUE
 WITH MEXICO
Foreigners Are Not Satisfied to Be at Mercy of the Mexican Courts-A Question of the Greatest Moment.
(Mexiean nerald,)


 Sir: After due consideration of your views on Art. IA of the proposed min ing laws, which have read and exam ined most carefully since the discus sion arose, l took it upon myself to answer your editorial entitled Real and Moral Persons" The reason that induces me, at present, to go further into the subject is the evident and apparent misunderstanding whicn your editorial of Sunday last shows of my aforesaid answer; and the motives in- ducing me to dispel that misunder- standing are a part of one who has the welfare and progress of his coun- try at heart, and who enjoys the sin cerity of his convictions.
 Your editorial of Sunday last sets forth the opinion of one of our most learned jurists, with reference to the constitutionality of law such as the one we are considering, but at the same time it forgets that the alien and naturalization law was passed in 1886. whereas Don Luis NTendez's opin- ion was rendered in 1883, when there existed no law other than the consti- tuoion by which the civil rights of aliens could be governed, and when the powers granted to congress by the said constitution for the creation of such a law had not been made ef- fectiye.
 , As you very well express it in your editorial, Art g of the law of 1886 says:
 "Only federal law san modify or restrict the civil rights enjoyed by for eigners on the principle of internation- al reciprocity, and to the end that they may be subject in the republic to the same disabilitie sas the laws of their respective countries impose on Mezi- cans residing therein, e.S-"
 St.l further you say:
 This article is rather unfayorahle than favorable to the contentious of "A Subscriber for the inference which it warrants is that, beyond the restric- tions referred to in Aart. 31, of the same law, no other restrictions of the civil rights of foreigners can be de creed save by federal law invoking specifically and expressly the principle of international reciprocity"
 have no reason to doubt the sin ceTity of the quoted paragraph, but at the same time I cannot believe that it could have escaped the writer's mind, that the mining Ia wOf the United States of American duly decTeed and passed by congress in 1866, and broad ened in it's application by the laws of 1870 and 1872. respectively, which law is still in force, Rev. St. U. s. Arts. 231S and followin, absolutely prohib. its the holding or owneing of mines in the United States by foreign cor poTation
 The principle of reciprocity, at least, in this case is applicable, granting without admitting that the editors interpretation of the law is correct.
 It would indeed be most unwise to apply the principle of reciprocity only to our friends of the north, withoui at the same time making the law ef fectiye and extensive to all aliens especially when a great deal more than the majority of the foreign capital in. vested in mine sin this country is American capital.
 Furthermote, tHe editor must Joe aware that when the mining law ot the United States was passed it was a short time after the civil war wher the United States treasury was drain ed of it's substance, the American peo pie impoverished and their coin depTe ciated to 40 per cent of its value. Nev ertheless European capital flowed in to the country to develop its resources The United States was a rich countr! capable of producing returns notwith standing the fact hat its law was just ly restrictive English capital is in vested in the United States unde American companies organized unde the laws of the several states of tn union, and We can say the same regard ing other European capital, becaus only American corporations can hol mining property in the United State:
 Mexico is a new country, it's natura resources are enormous; if there profit in exploiting them, capital wi flow into the country to get its shar of the profit, for Art. IA of the mil ing law is not hindrance, nor an in position. nor a tax; it is merely a pr' vision that tells the foreigner to talk of his coat and put on the overall 1t is only a change of dress with II gard to the foreign corporations, fc tn ealien corporation may own tn shares of the Mexican corporation which in turn holds the title and tn Mexican government will have abs lute jurisdiction over it's landed pro erty. which is both just and right, an fo which this measure tends.
 That our corporation law is defec i've. in relation to the English law, ma be accepted: that it cannot be amen' ed to grant the greatest facility fc the management of mining propertie and that this will not be done in tn very near future, is denied.
 The policy of foreigners with resaT to the new mining law, ca1 be sun med up in few words by quotin from the article written by a prom entn English citizen resident in tn city and which appeared in Sunday issue of your paper
 Tn addition io the defects. from a