The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1920-10-22
MEXICO UPHOLDS
HER OIL DEGREES
Ten Arguments Advanced for
Continuing Carranza's
DEGREES.
ADVERSE OPINION HERE
Officials Of State Department
Give Reasons for Chang
ing Laws.
Special Despatch 10 THE New YoaK HERALD.
New York Herald Bureau,l
A. Washington, ID. c., Oct. FL.

Special Despatch TO THE New yosK HERALD.
e New York Herald Bureau.l
Nas Washington, ID. C., Oct. FL.
The Mexican Government has adj
sanced ten arguments in support of its
continuance in effect OF the DEGREES of
the late President venustiano Carranza
relating to the naturalization" of oil.
against which the United States. Great
Britain, the Netherlands and France
protested continuously. These argu-
n'ents have not been presented officially
to the State Department, but have been
advanced in Mexico city, and while the
State Department has not. and. until
they are presented. cannot reply to them.
they have been closely studied and ana
lyzed by officials OF the Department.
The Mexican oil question took on
added Importance when a few weeks ago
the British Government precipitated a
Worldwide contest for control Of the oil
regions Of the world. Therefore the
STATE Department, which Is even now
measuring strength with Great. Britain
IN regard to the Mesopotaman oil fields
and other oil regions In mandatory terri
tory rs keeping a particularly careful
watch on the Mexican situation. Added
inheritance has been given to the ques-
IiDn py inc dTTlNdl III WdSllHe lOli VI
Roberto Pesquiera seeking recognition
on the basis of the continuation of the
DEGREES The ten arguments advanced
by The Mexican authorities officially and
yro{ricially and the opinions OF the
State Department officials on these ar
rumen:s are as follows.
Right to Conserve Resources.
i. The NIexicans contend that the
Mexican nation has the right to conserve
= ssr Itself its important petroleum re-
scnrceS. This. II is contended by Off
Gals here would perhaps be undlsputed
provided the Mexican did il honestly and
s-vitsi .iue respect for vested rights al
read acauii ed But the constitutional
uinccrt ana the Carranza DEGREES issue
~ carry i. into effect are not conserva-
ton measures and do not purport to be.
Tie. provide for a distribution among
N xicaEsc and Mexican corporations OF
properties legally couire / dei lor"A
by foreign companies under condition OF
immediate utilization Of the properties.
This IS the antithesis of conservation
and eliminates the possibility of reserve
supplies being held.
,. The Mexican authorities say that
Mexico In adopting the constitution of
1917 is simply re!nstating laws concern
Jug petroleum and minerals which eX-
isted from the time of Philip IL. OF Spain
but which were temporarily or errone-
ousIy changed between 1884 and 1917,
and that Mexico is only recovering"
lier rightful property. Even admitting.
say Dero rtment officials here. TIE claim
that the constitution Of 1917 reinstated
former property regime. Il is not de-
MED that the law OF 1884 recognized
the right Of the owner of the fee to
petroleum beneath. and vested rights
were set ny In reliance upon this law
But IL is pointed cut that under the law
OF Spain only metalliferous mineral de-
posits were part OF the royal natrimony
which. transferred to Mexico since the
iatters INDEPENDENCE, be- anne the basis
for the mining laws providing for de
nourcement' OF metaIliferous mineral
deposits
Laws ON Public Domain.
g. Mexican officials declare that the
laws OF Mexico are tac same az the laws
OF the United States In regard to petro-
larm. This Statement. was made only
hast month by Provisional President De
"a Huerta himself. who said that he re-
fcrred ito oil legislation of other coun-
tries such as the United States. where
the same principles suc1 as Mexico now
defends In the nationalist ton of the sub
soil Nprevail" But officials here show
that The legislation OF the United States
whicl DE "a Huerta had In mind refers
t,iy TO national lands. and not to land
owned By private individuals.
L. That there can be no ownership OF
petroleum until II has been reduced to
possession" Is the fourth argument adj
ranced. But American officials say this
Il simply confusion OF real and per-
~onal property that ii is true there is no
mol a., oil 10
attracted and stored. but that It is equal
~ true that ownership of zeal property
includes the right TO extract petroleum
occurring Underneath. The laws Of Mex
loo and TIE laws of the United States
were. before the constitution of 1917.
IDENTICAL In this respect
3. The Mexican officials quote Luis
Cabrera. Carranza's Minister OF Treas
r~y. that "the Mexican conception OF
vcstcd rights differs from the American
IDEAS upon this point" In other words.
that. while man who has bought
PETROLEUM lands and developed "a well
may be considered ne having vested
right IN the property. this Is not true
wien he has merely bought the land
without developing well. But officials
lere state there Is not one word In the
codes OF Mexico prior 10 the Constitu-
ion OF 1917 to lend the least support
,r sanction to any such idea. The min
tx codes OF 1884. 1892 and 1909 EEK
''licitly and unequivocalIy provide to the
ontrary.
Americans Privileged Claims.
3. Mexican authorities say thar under
Ae 'Carranza doctrine" 10 which the
present regime In Mexico stu adheres.
foreigners may enjoy no rights other
than those enjoyed by Mexicans and that
diplomatic interposition az contended for
~ the United States would improperly
give foreigners a right superior 20 that
enjoyed by natives. American authori-
ties. on the contrary. contend that the
so-called "Carranza doctrine" Is exactly
contrary 10 the universal principles OF
International law which provide that the
rights and remedies OF foreigners differ
from rights and remedies Of MexIcans