El Nuevo mexicano., 1919-01-23
Mexican Declares
Mexicp Cannot
Sell Territory

Editor New Mexican;
The Ashurst resolution has brought
about the question OF whether Next
can territory can be legally sold to
the United States.
Teodoro Frezleres, Mexican consul
at San Antonio, Texas, says that 1t
Is unconstitutional for the Mexican
government to sell its territory.
Lieutenant Henry 0. Flipper on the
other hand has taken the stand that
there is nothing in the Mexican con
stitution that forbids such sale and
thar the treaty,making power, where
authority should be found for dlspos-
ing OF national territory is absolute
ly without restrictions.
The constitution of 1857, Sec. II,
Arts. AZ to 40 definitely sets out the
integrant parts Of the national terri
tory.
Art. 81 OF the same commands that
1t is the duty of all Mexicans to de-
fend the national territory and the
honor OF the fatherfand."
Art. 81 Frac. III Of the constitution
OF 1917, commands that 1t is the duty
OF all Mexicans to- enlist and serve
in the national guard to preserve and
defend the independence, the terri
tory, the honor of the fatherland.
Evidently Lieutenant F1ipper is I'M
acquainted with the foregoing text,
as he also ignores that history, phiIo-
sophy and legal criterions teach us
that when a nation establishes it.
self and in its political code definite.
.ly sets out the integrant parts Of the
national territory such act implies a
solemn guarantee to its citizens that
1t will preserve said territory.
Moreover the constitution places on
the shoulders of its citizens the duty
to preserve, to defend its national ter
ritory, and 1t is obviously absurd to
say that n can preserve and defend
the national territory by selling 1t. To
preserve and defend the national terri
tory yon must have said territory;
the minute you part with it, your act
OF preserving and defending ceases,
and the very minute your protection
and defense ceases, that minute you
violate the constitution. Therefore,
such a sale would be unconstitutional
and void.
AS to Lieutenant Flipper's notion of
the extent of the treatysmaking pow
er, It is all wrong; that power is linn
tied just the same as any other found
in the constitution, If it wouldn't be
SO then n Of the main objects of
the trainers, namely to balance the
powers by opposing one to another SO
that no n power be left bridleless,
would be abortive.
Mr.. Willoughby on constitutional law
page 172 says Of the treatysmaking
power The treaty-making power as
expressed in the constitution is iii
Terms unlimited except by those re-
5~traints that are found in the instru-
nent against the action OF the govern
or its departments, and those
from the nature of the govern
nent itself and that OF the states. 1t
wouldn't be commended that it extends
10 far as to authorize what the CON
'titution forbids, or a change in the
character Of the government or in
hat Of one of the states, or a cessation
y any part of the territory of the
without its consent.
This principle is one of universal
acceptance and it applies to Mexico
ust the same as it applies to the
United States.
Therefore such a sale would be
gainst the constitution and void as
UGH.
FREDERICO SISNIEGA, JR.,
Y First National Bank Building, I'll
Paso, Texas.