New-York tribune., 1922-08-10
Mexican Rulirl, g G,
On Seizure T ails
To Satisfy U. S.
High Court Decisions DON'T
Define Vested Rights of
Foreigners, or Elucidate
Confiscatory Provisions
Follow Texas Co. Verdic1
State Department Officials
Express Disappointment
Over Oil Land Findings

WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 (By The As
sociated Press).-The much hcralded
series of decisions by the Supreme
Court of Mexico, relied on by Mexican
officials to meet American objections to
confiscatory provisions of the Mexican
constitution, now appear to be based in
the main on process Of reasoning
with which State Department officials
already have indicated their dissatis
faction.
In their conclusions all of the four
supplemental opinions submitted to the
department repeat word for word the
decision in the case of the Texas Com
pany, heretofore held by officials here
to be inadequate fully to protect
American titles from confiscation
under the mineral naturalization
stipulation of Article 27 of the con-
stitution.
In addition all five omit any direct
ruling on two other conhscatory pro-
visions which have engaged attention
here, involving division of large estatez
6y invocation of the right of eminent
domain, and naturalization OF the
property Of church organizations.
The department has not vet com
pleted it's study Of the five decisions
| and officials are not ready to express
an opinion regarding their effect as q
whole. The text Of the decisions them
selves, however, reveals to what extent
the court has followed, the line of legal
reasoning laid down originally in the
Texas Company case and found want
ing by legal authorities of the Wash
| ington government.
In effect the court rules throughout
that Article 27, nationalizing the min
ereal resources, is not retroactive, be-
cause it does not impair "vested
rights" nor provide for government
| ownership of property in which such
legally established. But there is nc
attempt to set forth in comprehensive
and categorical language what shall be
considered in the future to constitute
a vested right" nor to apply the term
to any except the specific cases before
the court.
AS discussed specifically in the five
decisions, the oil properties whose title
was in question were held to fall in
the "vested" class after the court had
recited in each case that steps actually
had Deen taken TO develop the prop
critics for mining purposes prior to
the adoption of the constitution What
is to be the fate Of properties legally
acquired and not improved, however
is not so clear.
The language in which the court
rules directly on the question of retro
activity, and which is repeated verba-
tim in all five of the decisions, is this (:
"Article IA of the constitution now
in force begins with this provision
No law shall be given retroactive
effect to, the prejudice of any person
whatsoever
''In order that new law may have
retroactive effect two concurrent cir
cumstances are required: That it have
effect on the past, resulting in q
change, and that it injure rights vested
under previous laws by reason Of the
law being in conflict with them. This
last circumstance is particularly essen
tlal when the laws are connected with
the past, but Notwithstanding this they
are harmless to the rights by not in
Juring any that may previously have
been acquired, then retroactivity does
not really exist, no conflicts arise
Paragraph four, Article 27, of the
present constitution cannot be consid-
cred retroactive neither by its tenor
nor by its spirit, as it does not injure
vested rights. Nor by it's tenor, be-
cause it does not contain the express