Evening star., 1921-04-05
j. s. INCONSISTENT,
REPLY OF ENGLISH
TO MANDATE NOTE
Rights by Standard Oil Com
pany in Palestine Cited
by Lord Curzon.
MESOPOTAMIAN GRANTS
MADE BEFORE WAR
Communication Points to Attitude
of American Government
to Mexican Oil.
By the Associated Press.

By the Associated Press.
LONDON, April 5.-American con-
tentions for equality of treatment for
the citizens of all nations in inundated
territory are held by the British gov
ernment to be scarcely consistent"
with the attitude of the United States
toward American oil interests in
Mexico.
The British view is expressed in a
long reply to Secretary Colby's note of
last November 20, which was made
public here today.
The note. signed by Lord Curzon,
secretary of state for foreign affairs,
was delivered March 1. and was in
answer to Secretary Colby's excep-
tions to the San Reno agreement be-
tween Great Britain and France re-
lating to petroleum resources in Meso-
potamia- That agreement. Lord Cur
zon said. was not fully understood, it
appeared, adding that it aimed at no
monopoly or exclusive rights"
Subject to Concession.
The Mesopotamian agreement was
said by Lord Curzon to be subject to
oil concessions in the vilayats of
Bagdad and Mosul, granted to Brit
ish interests before the war and not
to be treated merely as matter of
abstract principle" without refer
acquired in Palestine by the Standard
Oil Company "are no stronger" than
these British rights. the note added.
Request of the American govern
ment that British rights thus acquired
be disregarded. Lord Curzon added.
was scarcely consistent" with the at
titude adopted by the United States
IN ciY TO In
terests in oil properties in Mexico"
Points to Philippines.
The British note expresses agree
that the worlds. oil resource should
be open for development without ref
erence to nationality, but notes that
an act of the Philippine legislature in
1920 reserves development of public
mineral lands there to citizens Of the
United States or the Philippines.
Such legislation cannot but be re-
garded "as in contradiction of the
general principle enunciated by the
United States" it continued, and added
In this connection l observeAthat
Mr.. Colby does not attempt to refute
the statements contained in my note
of 9Th August last concerning the ae-
tion taken by the United States gov
ernment to prevent the exploitation
by British interests of such resources
in Haiti and Costa Rica"
Colby Letter Cited.
Reverting to the American attitude
toward American oil interests in Mex
leo, the British note cited Mr.. Colby's
letter of November 25, 1920, to Roberto
v. PesQuiera, then representative of
the new Mexican government in
Washington.
In that communication 1t said Mr..
Colby expressed particular satfsfac-
ton at the statements made in Mr.
Pesquiera's letter, then under repIy.
to the effect that President de la
Huerta and President-elect Obreson
had declared that Article % of the
Mexican constitution is not and must
not be Interpreted as retroactive or
violatfve OF valid property rights
U. s. Production Cited.
Lord Curzon made reference to Sec
retary Colby's "allusions" as to the
worlds oil supply and the statement
that the United States possessed only
one-twelfth. approximately. of world
OIL resources. The question, he said
was of subsidiary Importance" in the
discussion. but added that while "the
potentialfties of the future are nee
essarily problematical. the undisputed
fact remains that at present United
States soil produces 20 per cent. and
American interests in adjoining ter
ritory control further IL per cent Of
the Oil production of the world
1T is not easy, therefore," Lord
Curzon said. ito justify the United
States governments insistance that
American control should now be ex
tended to resources which may be
developed in inundated territories. and
that. too. at the expense Of the sub
jects Of another state who have OBJ
tanned a valid concession from the
former government of those terri
tories"