Douglas daily dispatch., 1926-05-27
DOUGLAS DAILY DISPATCH THURSDAY MORNING. MAY 27 1926

ILL L II u hOJA / .MOh4N11NN y
they are physical persons, may retain
integrally their rights until their
death and, consequently, far from as
sailing acquired rights, the law re-
spects Them as the right of any per-
! son cannot be extended beyond his
own life except in the case of hered-
itary transmission, for which it is
provided in Article VI. Only when
alien moral persons holding stock in
terest in Mexican corporations owners
of real properties for agricultural
purposes are involved, it is provided
that they may hold said rights for
ten years, because under the consti-
tuition of 1917, foreign corporations
cannot acquire real property in the
republic, and it was necessary to fix
reasonable term for the corpora
tions which were under these condi-
tions, in order to cause them no
harm. All legislations establish that
the law is at liberty to widen, modify
or restrict the capacity of the moral
persons in question.
With regard to the time allowed
discussion shall be applied in very
few instances, because it is limited
to cases in which foreign corpora
tions are shareholders in Mexican
corporations; and since said article
refers to future rights, such as the
death of the individual or the utter
ior lapse of ten years, it's effects
cannot be considered retroactive, in
asmueh as no acquired rights were
pre-existing, but simply an expecta-
tion of rights. And since the laws
in force at the time of acquisition
are adduced, it seems pertinent to
remind that the provisions of article
729 of the civil code, which are iden-
teal to all previous provisions rela-
tive to the matter, define property
as follows: Ownership is the right
to enjoy and dispose of a thing with
out more limitations than those which
the laws fix" And as the laws are
not immutable, property rights may
be modified by them in the future.
The provisions in force in the statesI
of Arizona and Illinois, applicable to
the acquisition of real properties,
were referred to in this sense in the
and although in the note under ref
erence it is asserted that both the
Illinois law of 1897 and the pro-
visions of the Arizona civil code of
1913, relating to alien ownership of
real estate, are expressely made to
apply to future acquisitions and not
to property already acquired, it may
be observed that in some cases
term is fixed for the conservation of
rights already acquired, which is ex-
actly the principle of the Mexican
law In those states as we'll as in
the states of Kansas, Kentucky, Min
nesota, Oklahoma, Missouri and Wash
ington, the laws of which are in this
matter similar, it is established that
Aliens, non-residents of the country,
are incapacitated to acquire real pro-
perty, except those who may be heirs
to foreigners having previously ac-
quired such properties, and even in
this case, they are compelled to dt-
vest themselves of the properties,
within a term of from three to six
years, under the sanction of forfeit
ure of such properties in behalf of
the state Foreigners are likewise al
lowed to accept liens or mortgages
as guarantees for their own assets
and to acquire such incumbered pro-
perties at auction, but with the OBJ |
legation to divest themselves of them
within a term which is generally of
three years, under a penalty identi- |
cal to the one already referred to. |
Lastly, 1 take the liberty to point
out that the enactment in the United !
States of the prohibition law COM
'pletely paralyzed the business enter |
prises established along that line.
(The amendment meant to stop the
whole business Hamilton VS.. Ken
lucky DistiIleries Psi U. S. LAG, 151,
No. ~: and it would seem that to
completely paralyze business enter
prise is to destroy the legitimate
rights acquired therein, and nothwith-
standing this, the american govern
ment was not detained by such con-
sideration.
Your excellency says that the gov
ernment of the United States does
not understand and would like to
be further advised as 10 the meaning
of the observation made in the mem |
orandum of December 5, 1925, that the !
limitation imposed by the law upon
companies possessing rural property
for agricultural purposes tends to
preclude possible international con- !
flicts in the application of the agrar-
ian legislation, since even though !
foreigner might hold minority |
stock interest in such company, it is
not understood how the agrarian law !
could be applied to- the benefit of |
an American who might hold less
than so per cent of the interest |
therein, and that any taking of agri-
cultural property owned so proper
tionally by Mexican and American |
citizens would deprive the latter of
some portion of their interest.
Continued in Our Next Series)