Evening star., 1926-11-24
Latest Correspondence Re-
veaIs Seeming Deadlock on
Property Rights Issue.
KELLOGG NOTE IMPLIES
RECOGNITION AT STAKE
Reply Asserts No justified Mlsan'
derstanding Can Exist Between
Two Countries.
By the Associated Press.

BY the Associated Press
Four notes published today by the
State Department, without comment
disclose the United States and Mexl-
CO approaching a showdown on the Is
sue of American property rights and
the Mexican governments policy OF
Matchmaking oil and mineral re-
sources.
This phase of the troubled rels tions
between the two governments hinges
chiefly on the provision in new Mexi'
can land laws requiring alien owners
of such property to sign away their
rights to diplomatic protection OF
their home governments for their
holdings by January /, or forfeit them
to the Mexican government.
American oil and land owners are
not expected to accede to this demand
and. further, the State Department
has reasserted the principle of inter
national law that is both the right
and duty of a government to protect
its citizens against any invasion OF
their rights of person or property by
a foreign government. and that this
right may not be contracted away by
the individual"
u. S. Hints Drastic Action.
The Gales government, meanwhile.
has given no indication of recedlng
from its position that property rights
legally acquired prior to 1917 by
Americans and other foreigners must
adjust themselves to the new prin-
ciples of naturalization 'in general
interest of the nation" In the cor.
respondence lies a hint as to the pos
sib.e course of the United States If
Mexico persists in it's position-with-
drawal of it's Ambassador, or even OF
recognition of the Gales government.
Clear. though not specific, warning
Is contained in the State Departme MT s
communication that Mexican-Ameri-
can relations will be endangered If
Mexico deprives American citizens of
the full ownership and enjoyment"
Of their legally acquired property
rights, and 1t is further set forth that
recognition would not have been ex'
tended to Mexico without assurances,
given in 1923, that such right would
be respected.
The Mexican government, on the
other hand, holds that special pains"
were taken by the administration of
Gen. Obregon, Gales predecessor as
President Of Mexico during the nego-
tiations, which led to resumption Of
diplomatic relations, mot to admit a
conditional recognition subject to the
outcome of the conferences of the
1923 joint commission.
Mexico Asks for Proof.
In its last note the Mexican gov
ernment called for concrete cases
in which recognized principles Of
international law may have been
violated or may be violated in disre.
gard of legitimate interests of Ameri-
can citizens. since in such cases 1t will
be disposed to repair such violations"
The first note, by Secretary Kellogg,
dated July 81. of this year, enumer.
ated four basic principles which it
says have 'all been indorsed by the
Mexican government" and said the re-
manning difficulties lie in specific ap-
plication of these general concep-
tons" The four principles are:
First. Lawfully vested rights of
property Of every description are to
be respected and preserved in con-
formity with the recognized princi-
pies of international law and of equity.
Second. The general understand
ing reached by the commissioners of
the two countries in 1928, and ap-
proved Dy DOLn governments dI the
time Of resumption Of diplomatic re-
lations between them, stands unnidi-
fed and it's binding force is recog
nized.
Protection of e. s. Citizens.
Third. The principle of interna-
tional law that it is both the right
and the duty of a government to
protect it's citizens against any inva-
sion of their rights Of person or prop
erty by a foreign government. and
that this right may not be contracted
away blythe individual. is conceded.
Fourth. The principle that vested
rights may not be impaired by legis-
lation retroactive in character or con-
fiscatory in effect Is not disputed"
Supplementing this presentation in
a long argumentative note, Mr.. kel
logg asserted that American. owned
subsoil rights legally acquired in
Mexico prior to May /. 1917, could
not be reduced by subsequent iegis-
lation, nor could the owners be re-
quired to waive the rights to protec-
ton Of their government under pain
of forfeiture in order to substitute
CONTINUED on Page 5, Column p