The New York herald., 1922-08-11
HUGHES CALLS OIL
RULING INADEQUATE
Holds Mexican Decision Must
BE Broadened to Provide
Protection.
speosal Dispatch to THE NEW York HERALD
New York Herald Bureau.
Washingfnn ID O. Atlr 10

New York Herald Bureau,
Washington, ID. O.. Aug. 10.
The recent decisions of the Mexican
Supreme Court in the five Amparo cases
relating TO subsoil rights in lands con-
tanning petroleum or other substances dc
rot go far enough TO guarantee full pro-
lection for American interests sagainst
the application OF the alleged retroactive
clauses OF the Mexican constitution OF
1917.
Following a thorough examination OF
the text of the decisions Secretary OF
State Hughes issued statement to-day
In which 1t is in effect declared that the
precedent In Mexican Jurisprudence"
established must be broadened before
protection is provided.
What the decisions do. the Secretary
OF State declared is TO deny that Article
~ OF the 1917 constitution does not
apply to subsoii rights in properties
acquired before May /, 1917. when the
constitution became effective and which
were in process OF development at that
time.
There are many cases pending in the
Mexican Supreme Court which involve
this important question. Until such de-
cisions are forthcoming 1t is indicated
that this Government VIII not commit
itself as fully satisfied that the interests
OF American citizens are not jeopardized.
No communication relative TO the de-
cislous will be sent to the Mexican Gov
ernment by the State Department. The
decisions were sent here IN an informal
way for the information OF this Gov
fa,sf, ant hsI Teff ftv11t Ha
However, the effect Of the Hughes state
ment Is to discount statements enanat-
ing from the Mexican Foreign Office
through the Mexican Embassy here,
which declared that the decisions gave
full protection to petroleum interests.
The comment of Secretary Hughes is
as follows:
"rrhe department has received the text
of four decisions of the Mexican Su-
preme Court rendered in May last In
Amparo proceedings instituted by petro-
leum companies These four decisions
seem to be identical in all, essential par
ticulars and. together with the similar
decision Of that court rendered August
30. 1921, in the Amparo case brought by
the Texas Company. appear to constitute
what is called a precedent In Mexican
jurisprudepce.
Il
IA of the Mexican constitution. providing
that no law shall be given retroactive
effect to the prejudice of any person
whatsoever, does not relate to the pro-
visions of the constitution itself, and
that when the constitution en1bcdies
retroactive provisions these must be ap-
piled retroactively.
'It is further set forth that the fourth
paragraph of article 27 OF the Mexican
constitution of 1917, referring to petro-
iclim and other subsoll substances. cam
not be considered to be retroactive, as
ii does not injure previous and legiti-
mately acquired rights but 1t Is av-
parent that the application OF the prin-
ciple thus declared must depend upon
what is considered TO be an acquired
right
Tho five decisions creating tho pre-
cedent IN question relate exclusively 20
cases OF leases or contracts which were
made by owners OF land for prospectins
for and working petroleum. and " sale
that thereby the privileges OF th'
owners OF the lands were translated
into positive acts and accordingly the
claimants. as the lessees or holders oil
these contracts had acquired rights tc
the injury OF which the provision OF the
constitution OF 1917 for the nationaliza-
ton or petroleum could not be applied.
The Inference from these decisions is
that petroleum properties in process OF
development before May I. 1917, wher
the present constitution took effect, arc
protected from q retroactive applica-
ton Of the fourth paragraph of article
27
"These decisions do not however. et-
fectively deal with the rights OF Ameri-
can citizens in lands containing petro-
leurn or other subsoil substances whore
the lands were owned prior 70 May ],
1917. but had not been developed or ~
to which leases or contract rights q
prospect for and work petroleum had
not been granted before that date.
"The question whether tae owners of
the land I'm such case have appropri-
ate protection Is yet TO be determined
by tho Mexican Supreme Court. II IL
understood that there arc largo
number of Amparo proceedings before
that court which involve that question
and are still undecided
"The department has also rhecn ad-
vised by the Mexican authorities that
tho Mexican Congress has sole authori-
~ TO regulate by an appropriate organic
law the Interpretations Of the .prccspts
Of the constitution and that no organic
law for this purpose has yet been en-