Douglas daily dispatch., 1926-05-27

wherefore the entire question is re-
duced to determining whether the
application of the laws in question is
retroactive or not, or whether the
laws assail or respect the rights
previously lawfully acquired.
Before gong any further, it seems
pertinent to quote the opinion of
Chief Justice Marshall, Z Cranch, 116,
1876, and ia, who said:
"'The jurisdiction of the nation
within it's own territory is necessari-
ly exclusive and absolute. 1t is sus-
ceptible of no limitation not imposed
by itself. Any restriction upon it, de-
irving validity from an external
source would imply diminution of
it's sovereignty to the extent of the
restriction, and an investment of that
sovereignty to the same extent in
that power which could impose such
restriction.
"All exceptions, therefore, to the
full and complete power of nation
i within it's own territories, must be
! traced up to the consent of the ma
tion itself. They can flow from no
other legitimate source.
when private individuals of one
nation spread themselves through
another as business or caprice may
direct, mingling Unfortunately with
the inhabitants of that other, or when
merchants vessels enter for the pur-
pose of trade, it would be obviously
inconvenient and dangerous to So
ciety, and would subject the laws to
continual infraction, and the govern
ment to degradation, if such indi-
viduals or merchants did not owe
temporary and local allegiance, and
were not amendable to the jurisdic
, tion of the country.
''Nor can the foreign sovereign
have any motive for wishing such ex-
ception. His subjects thus passing
into foreign countries, are not en-
ployed by him, nor are they en-
gagged in national pursuits. Conse-
quently there are powerful motives
for not exempting persons of this
description from the jurisdiction of
the country in which they are found,
and no one motive for requiring it.
The implied license, therefore, under
which they enter can never be con-
strued to grant such exemption"
In reference to Article II of the
law approved by the Mexican con-
gress on December 81, 1925, your
excellency states that the govern
ment of the United States does not
admit that one of its citizens can
contract by declaration or otherwise
to bind his own government not to
invoke it's rights under the rules of
International law, because the right
of the state to extend diplomatic pro-
lection cannot be waived by the in
dividual, since it is not personal
right but a privilege of the state,
which, irrespective of all, has to ex-
tend the protection under reference.
1t seems that the foregoing expo
sition arises from a misunderstand-
ing It is evident that an individual
cannot force the state, of which he
is citizen, not to exercise right
which corresponds to it, and in this
regard the American doctrine is en-
tirely correct; but no such thing is
expressed, since the article in ques-
ton requires only that the alien con-
slider himself a national in respect
to the interests he may share as a
member of a MeXcan corporation, and
that he do not invoke in reference
thereto the protection of his govern
ment. It is, then, an obligation con-
tracted individually and with binding
effects only on the one who contracts
and the Mexican government without
impairing in any way all the rights
of the foreign state. But should the
indivduak who has contracted the OBJ
legation violate it, such violation
must be punished, because law
without a sanction is not a Law. And
since the violation affects only, the
individual in particular without i'm
pairing in any way the rights of the
state to which he belongs, it cannot
be understood how may it be con-
trary either to international law or
to the thesis sustained by your ex-
cellency's government.
On the other hand, it seems that
in general terms this Mexican law is
not so strict as American jurispru-
dence, because it does not demand
naturalization as a requirement for
the acquisition of any kind of real
property, as it occurs in other coun-
tries.
"Thornton, umpire, Smith Bowen V.
Mexico, No. 442, Am. Docket, copven-
tion of July 4, 1868, MS o. Ill 5S6.
"The umpire is of opinion that
with regard to Mexico the claimant
cannot be considered to be a citi-
zen of the United States. The UNI
pire has always held that the pur-
chase of real property in Mexico
gave the foreigner the right to call
himself Mexican citizen if he wish
ed to be so, but did not impose upon
him the obligation, if he did not wish
/ it, There being no regulation pre-
scribed for carrying out the law upon
this subject, the foreigners silence
would imply that he wished to re-
main citizen. of the nation to which.
lhe previously belonged.
"But in this particular case the
claimant asked to be allowed to
become a Mexican citizen for the pur-
pose of being able to consummate the