Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1919-08-27
Foreign Interests In Mexico
Declare Powers Will In
terfere With Plan.
U. S. HAD PROTESTED
State Department Made Pro-
test in April, 1918.
(By The Associated Press }


WASHINGTON, ID. C., Aug. 27.-
The American Association of Pro-
ducers Of Petroleum in Mexico has
sent to the state department the re-
cent statement made by members of
the CarranZa cabinet to the effect
that the government had the right un-
der the constitution to enact laws
which would result in the confiscation
Of property owned by foreigners and
foreign interests. The letter refutes
the statements made by the Mexican
cabinet members by showing that
they had enormously quoted the
French authority on law which the
Mexicans declared supported their
claims.
The United States state depart
ment, in April 1918, protested
against the proposed laws as confis-
catory, and the same conclusion was
reached by France, England and Hol-
land. In view Of the stand these
countries have taken on the subject,
il is stated by officials that Mexico
will not be permitted to confiscate
oil properties of foreigners.
The newspapers for several days"
the letter said, have carried state
ments emanating principally from
Mexico City, intended to justify Ar
ticle 27 Of the Mexican constitution
of 1917, which declares that all Pc
troleum in the republic belongs to the
nation" Cabrera, Schiafaino and
the others now plant themselves on
the broad ground that in the pu1.ic
interest the Mexican governmer can
confiscate the private proYffty Of
Americans and other foreigA.. RS with
out violating international law aAAc-
cording to their theory, property
rights such as oil companies have ac-
quired, are subordinate to the well
fare Of the Mexican public and there
fore can be wiped out. This has been
their real position from the begin
ming, though it has undergone mild
disguise from time to time. They
started out by citing American law
on the subject, but it was shown that
American law j. precisely the re-
verse of their contention and now
they cite the French authority, Fran
co.'s Laurent. He is quoted as fol-
lows:
Laws may have retroactive
effect when public interests are
ut stake"
7" II l. commonly argued that laws
have retroactive effect when general
interest SO demands, because no right
may be acquired against public inter-
est. According 70 our view this IS
too absolute. If private parties may
invoke against the application Of a
retroactive law, only their interest
might be impaired by the retroactive
effect, the impaired interest should
cede before general interest. But
when private parties have a right i'm
paired by the law the court may not
in the name Of general interest de-
stroy or modify the rights Of citi-
zens. The maintenance Of rights IS
the greatest Of all interests.
$50 again il transpires that the au-
thority relied on II squarely opposed
to their theory. They have dropped
the eXpostulation that the c0nstitu-
tion and law are not retroactive: they
now admit that they distinctly are,
and the sole and only authority cited
to prove that such things may be
proved to be plainly against their
contention. On such base is built
up their justification Of spoilation.
"Their argument that TO seize the
oil lands from their rightful owners,
and turn them over to the Mexican
government To develop would re-
dound to the public benefit is answer
ed by the record made in the manage
ment of railway express companies
and other industries w seized"