Douglas daily dispatch., 1926-05-11

lands. Now then, according to an ac
knowledged principle of international
law, no nation can protest against
violations of rights not granted by it.
self, and for that reason there would
be no occasion for the United States to
seek to prevent Mexico from adopting
similar laws in the exercise of her
sovereignty.
| beg to call very courteously you1
attention to the legislation existing in
the state of Illinois, which regulates
the acquisition of real estate by for
eigners. That legislation shows that
it contains exactly the same provisions
as those contained in the legislation
approved by the Mexican chamber OF
deputies; but more extreme, since the
terms provided for the foreigners to
dispose of their properties very
much shorter than those contemplated
by the Mexican law, and the penalty
imposed for the violation of it's pro-
visions is the future loss of the real
estate or of the pertinent rights in
favor of the STATE of Illinois. This law
surely is more drastic, more conclu
sive and goes further in it's resolu-
tions that the projected Mexican le.
gislation.
Referring now to the purposes of the
proposed legislation, 7 inform you that
it merely tends to prevent in general
an abuse that the very Jurisprudence
of the United States decrites. In fact,
it is not possible by means of a cor
poration, to acquire properties the
right on which it is not lawful to hold
!
224, states:
"224. Foreig1 corporations Urchas-
ing stock of local corporation. A for-
eign corporatio On cannot as a device to
/ enable it to hold real estate, purchase
the capital stock of a local corpora
] tion. Such an act is a violation OF the
i law prohibiting corporations from ac-
! quiring any real estate within the
! state unless authorized by law, anu
j lands so held are SUBJECT to escheat."
! Furthermore, the legislation now
pending in congress rs not novelty in
our system: the constitution in force
has consecratcd it for several years,
and it has been applied up to the pres
ent time without opposition from
aliens. Other laws, as we'll, have con
s4crated it for some time; for instance.
the railway law, enacted on AprlI 29
1y92 in article 40 provides tha-' all
railway concerns shall be Mexican
even though the company may have
been organized abroad and though all
or some of it's members are foreign
| ers; the same ccAaern snail be sub
! ject to the tribunals of the republic,
| whether federal or local, in ali those
matters in which said tribunals have
Jurisdiction according to law; the
company and all foreigners and their
/ successors who s''all take part in it's
employees or in a..y other capacity,
sha'' always be regarded as Mexicans
in all matters relating to the c'n-
/ pany; they can never urge, with res
pect to the securities and affairs con-
nected with the company any rights as
| foreigners on any pretext whatever,
and they shall only enjoy the rights
and the means of enfor 2lng them
which the laws of the republic grant
to Mexicans, so that. in consequence
foreign diplomatic agents can exercise
no interference of any kind.
! The mining law in force since No
vember 25, 1909, provides likewise re.
! strictions for foreigners to acquire
mining property titles within "a GER
tain zone on the frontier with foreign
countries, and establishes the proceed
ure to be followed in case they fail to
comply with such dispositions.
The foregoing explanations having
been made, and not wishing to leave
in the mind of your excellency the
idea that the Mexican bill is retroac-
i; tive anG confiscatory, 1 undertake now
to examine the remarks that you are
pleaTed to present.
You refer to the provision requiring
alien stockholders in corporations that
own real estate, to agree before the
department of foreign relations to
consider themselves as nationals in SO
/ far as to the portion of interest hello
by them in the corporation, and not
to invoke the protection of their gov
ernments in regard to it, under pen
atty o6 forfeiture to the nation of said
Interest. In this connection, you call
4 my attention particularly to the facr
that your government has always de-
eIined to concede that the waiver of
nationality made by citizen can de-
/ prive the government of the United
States from using diplomatic interven-
/ ton in the event of a denial of justice.
/ Notwithstanding that the disposition
referred to by you does not emanate
from the bill now pending before the
senate but that it derives from the
Mexican Constitution of 917 and there
! fore your remark would seem foreign
to the subject, L beg, in my turn, to
| reply to you that the principle thai
| every nation is sovereign to legislate
on real estate within it's own territory
/ is universally accepted. AS a conse-
| quence of this principle, Mexico could
prevent any foreigner TO acquire such
/ real estate within her jurisdiction, and
with greater reason she can regulate
, the acquisitions of that kind, because
| it is principle of logic that he who
| can do greater lesser
| You observe particularly that the
requirement of an agreement before
| the department of foreign relations,
referred to above, is made without con-
sidering the date of the acquisition
of the shares held by the foreigner,