New-York tribune., 1921-06-09
MIR. Hughes and Mexico


when it appears that there is
government in Mexico. willing to bind
itself to the discharge of primary in
ternational obligations" said Secrc-
tary Hughes, "concurrently with
that act its recognition will take
place."
The Mexican constitution contains
a number of provisions the effect of
which is to give the government the
power to confiscate foreign property
holdings if the government is dis
posed to exercise it. If these provi-
sions are applied retroactively, as
they can be, they may be used to de-
prive Americans of property previ-
ously acquired in good faith. Such
confscatory policy strikes not only
at the right of individuals but at the
very basis Of international inter
course. 1t is one Of the fundamental
principles of international law that
every state Is bound to recognize
that the property of private persons,
whether citizens or foreigners, is in
violate. Under Article XXVII of the
present Mexican constitution, how.
ever, this right is placed in jeopardy.
The American government feels
that the Interpretation of this mat
ter up to date has been sufficiently
unsatisfactory to necessitate fur
ther and clearer statement of the
Mexican purpose. If Mexico does
not contemplate g confiscatory policy
there can be no possible objection to
a treaty in which Mexico will agree
to safeguard the rights of property
which attached before the present
constitution was promulgated in
1917. If Mexico refuses to clarity
the issue In this manner the only
natural Interpretation is that she in
tends to confiscate valid property in
terests of Americans in Mexico.
In decision of the United States
Supreme Court it was held that
when a government which origi-
mated in revolution or revolt is rec
ognized by the political department
Of our government as the de jure
government of the country in which
it 10 established, such recognition is
retroactive in effect and validates all
the actions and conduct of the gov
ernment so recognized from the COM
mencement of its existence"
Should America recognize Mexico
without taking exception to the Mex
lean theory Of confscation there is
reason to fear that the Mexican gov
ernmeat. in accordance with the
above reasoning, would claim that
the United States ipso }acto recog-
nized the constitutional principles of
confiscation. For the United States
to do this is obviously impossible. Mr..
Hughes has stated that whenever
Mexico is ready to give assurances
that she will perform her fundamen-
tai obligation in the protection both
Of persons and of rights Of property
~a'idly acquired there will be no OBJ
stacles to the most advantageous re-
lations between the two peoples"
If Mexico is sincere in her profess
sions of good faith, what objection is
there to clarifying by treaty this
disputed point in her constitution in
such a manner as to comply with the
provisions Of international law?
A treaty covering the disputed
points between the two nations would
reestablish complete harmony and by
it's very existence bring about recog-
milton. A mere oral or written diplo-
matte promise will scarcely suffice,
| for It is too well remembered that
Carranza made promises in 1915
which he forgot in 1917.