The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1922-05-29

sion In Treaty with Japan.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.
Especial Despatch to The Reformer)
Copyright 1922
WASHINGTON, Nav 29.-Thorough
examination of all the facts and off
cial communications between Mexico and
the United States relative to recognition
of the Obregon government leads only to
an inexplicable attitude on the part Of
the Mexican authorities Why do they
hesitate to grant the simple requests of
the department. of state for a reciprocal
understanding?
All sorts o. curious impressions seem
to have Deen spread about to the effect
that the United States was demanding
something extraordinary. something
which would offend Mexican pride and
sovereignty to accept. 1t has even been
stated that the United States is not sat
isied to get an assurance that all titles
to property held prior to the adoption of
the Mexican constitution in May, 1917,
shall be valid, but is asking for the vail
dation of title TO property acquired since
that date. This statement is absolutely
without foundation
Similarly it has been banded about in
INSTRUMENTATION circles that the
United States and Japan have such
provision in their treaties and it is abSO-
iuteIy essential from the Mexican view
point that foreign capital shall at least
be encouraged TO the extent of being per-
mitted to rent land for warehouses, fac
tories and other structures. 1t is believed
that the Mexican government now fully
understands this point and that it is no
longer Il matter of controversy between
| the two governments.
Mexieo's Attitude Unchanged.
The whole question hinges upon the at
,itude of Mexico which has hardly
changed from the very beginning. 1t
has been urged, for instance. that the
supreme court of Mexico by its decisions
has interpreted the constitution so as to
strip the mooted article - of its retro
active implication. When this decision
was made, some critics pointed out that
ii took at least FIVE decisions along the
same line to establish a precedent SINH
lar to the precedent of American courts.
So four more decisions have been forth
coming The trouble is that all these de
Cisions are restricted in scope and do
not clear up all the points at issue For
example the court decisions would per
nit the retroactive feature of the con-
stitutiou to apply 70 all who NAV have
bought land prior TO 1917 but who may
not have declared publicly their purpose
to develop its sub-soil or who may not
| have been engaged in development prior
/ to that date. The owner who bought his
| title in good faith but who did not pub
| licly proclaim his intentions-and there
was no law. compelling him to do so at
1.-THE time-fnds himself outside the pale
| of the Mexican supreme courts decl-
| sionS. ..
1t is a safe prediction. however. that
/ even series of decisions of the Mexican
| courts viii not suffice. The United
| States government * naturally gratited
| to see these .interpreta tons but feels
that if the courts decide the point there
ought to be no objection to saying the
same thing in a treaty between the two
| countries.
| No Excuse for Further Delay.
| Mexico has objected through her diplo-
| matte representatives that the president
| Of Mexico couldn't interpret the consti-
tuition or perform legislative functions
But under the Mexican constitution the
| President has a right to negotiate treat
les and now that the supreme court has
| decided that the constitution is not to
be considered retroactive there can be
no further excuse for delay on the ground