New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1921-09-28
Mexican Ruling
f ai1s to Settle
s -
All Oil Rights.
Fixing of Article q as Nom
Retroactive Leaves Unde-
cided Status of Land I'm
exploited in May, 1917
SubsoiI Question Arises
Point Is Whether Original
Owncrsin Transfer Consid-
cred Petroleum, Question
By George E. Hyde
Speech, Cable 10 The Tribune


MEXICO CITY, Sept. 27.--The Mex
lean Supreme Courts decision in the
Texas Company ell case, which was
handed down formally last night, while
establishing rather definitely the non
retroactivity Of Article 227 of the Car
fails to define clearly the status of
lands upon which oil exploitation work
was not started prior to May /, 1917,
when that constitution was adopted.
Prominent jurists here, who are Of
this opinion, point out that the court
discussed the question whether the
original owners expressly intended to
transfer the subsoil rights in the origi
nal sale. thereby implying that lands
acquired for other purposes than oil
which revert to the national govern
ment under the Carranza constitution.
The court held tina. Congress, and
particularly constituent congress, has
a right to enact retroactive laws. 1t
showed that the constitution of 1917
differs in this respect from that of
1857, as the earlier said that no re-
troactive laws should be enacted,
whereas the later document provides
that no laws should be given a retro
active effect.
Finding Unanimous
That part of the petition Of the Texas
Company against the DEGREES inter
preting and regulating the application
Of Paragraph A. Article n, was denied
by the court, which held that these
have the status of laws, having been
approved by Congress.
The courts finding was unanimous,
although the explanatory preamble
was approved by only eight out of the
eleven justices. Chief Justice Enrique
Moreno and Justices Cara Perez and
Benito Flores dissented, believing that
certain parts of the preamble were ir-
relevant
The immediate effect of the courts
decision will be to force many small
companies which acquired their land
rights subsequent to May /, 1917, TO
constitution and pay an annual royalty
or rental to the Federal government.
Officials Of the oil companies here be-
Sieve that the decision strikes a death
blow to further. development of the oil
fields. -
The decision was worded so as not to
serve as a precedent in many cases
now pending before the court, even if
Mexican laws did not establish the ne
cessfty of considering each case on its
own merits, regardless of precedent.
Reaction Awaited
Foreign diplomats here are trans
hitting the details of the findings to
theft respective governments, and an
early reaction to the decision is ex-
pected from Washington and other
capitals. Mexican government officials
are not willing to comment on the de-
cision, although it is known that Pres
ident Obregon is pleased with the re-
rama DEGREES. Representatives of the
American oil companies also are with
holding comment until an analysis of
the decision has been made by their
legal experts
MEXICO CITY, Sept. OF (By The AS
sociated Press).- "Paragraph four of
Article XVII" said the section of the
decision dealing with the non-retro-
activity Of the article in question, "does
not attack acquired rights. No attack
upon these rights is made in the text
OF the article, because it does not con-
tain an express mandate regarding it's
retroactivity, nor can any such implica-
ton be read into it. No attack is
made in the spirit of the article, be-
cause it acts in the same spirit mani
Tested in other articles of the const-
tuition, which, as a whole, recognize
the old principles upon which are
based the rights of man granting
ample guarantees.
Considering Article XVII non-re-
troactive, we find it is in harmony with
the principles set forth in the para
graphs Immediately preceding it. These
deal with private property. We also
find it in harmony with the sections
relating to petroleum which follow it,
From all this it is understood that,
according to universally applied rules
which have been accepted for the in
depreciation of laws, paragraph four of
Article XVII is not retroactive in
that it does not impair rights pre-
viously and legtimately acquired"