Douglas daily dispatch., 1926-05-28

/ that when foreigner holds so per
cent or more of the total interest in
any of the companies in question
the foreigner, in fact, holds the con-
troll on it, since, in general, the reso-
lutions in such companies are adopt
ed by q majority of votes, and when,
through the application of the agrar-
ian laws it may be deemed necessary
to appropriate rights of the company,
if these are held by a majority of
Mexicans, the matter is exclusively
settled according to the legislation
Of the country, but if the majority is
held by a foreigner, he invokes the
protection of his government, which
gives rise to possible conflicts of in
ternational order, and it follows, OBJ
viously, that in order to preserve the
good relations with another state, it
is pertinent to remove as much as
possible any cause of friction.
Referring to article IA of the law,
relative to the subsoil, which article
provides for the confirmation of the
rights acquired prior to the enforce
ment of the constitution, your excel
lencY states that the government of
the United States has taken the po-
sition that lands acquired by Ameri-
can citizens in Mexico under the
laws of 1884, 1892 and 1909, entitle
the owners or lesees of the surface
to the mineral fuels and oils con-
tanned in the subsoil and your gov
ernment expresses the hope that the
regulations to be issued by the eXecu-
tive will confirm the rights of the
owners who had performed positive
acts as defined in the declarations
made by the American commissioners
in the conferences of 1928. In this
regard, is quoted portion of the
decision rendered by the supreme
court of justice on August 80, 1921,
in which it held paragraph ~ of
article 81 of the constitution of 1917
not to be retroactive, position also
assumed in four other amparo cases,
and it is likewise quoted the declar-
ations of the Mexican commissioners
as meaning that the executive would
respect and enforce the decisions of
the judicial power and confirming
that it would continue to abide by
the principles embodied in the decis-
ions of the court to the effect that
the aforementioned provision is not
retroactive in respect to all persons
who have performed, prior to the
PRONUNCIATION of said constitution,
some positive act which would mani
fest the intention of the owner Of
the surface, or the qualified persons,
to exercise his rights to the oil under
the surface.
Inasmuch as article IA of the law
regulating petroleum matters under
article 27 of the constitution provides
that rights acquired prior to it's en-
forcement shall be confirmed as es-
tablished therein, it cannot be doubt
ed that the regulations issued by the
executive shall enforce that provision
and therefore, the rights acquired in
accordance with the laws of 1884,
1892 and 1909 shall be confirmed.
However, it must be understood that
those laws granted to the owner of
the surface or to any person entitled
to it, an optional right, that is to
say, the option to appropriate the
mineral fuels and oils under the sur
face, and therefore, while he would
not have performed any act tending
to such appropriation, he had not
acquired any right. At the confer
ences of 1923, the American commits
sioners were aware Of this fact, and
accepted it, and it is again expressed
in the note of your excellency when
it accepts that the rights to be con-
firmed shall only be confirmed when
ever any of the positive acts ienumer-
ated therein, and which are substan-
TALLY the same referred to in article
IA, be performed; and consequently,
when none of such acts have been
performed and thus no claim has
been confirmed, there cannot be any
retroactivity, since no acquired right
will be assailed.
1t is not possible to understand
within reason that the owner of the
surface might consider himself it's
owner as far as the center of the
earth, to, quote phrase of ancient
Roman law, when legislation grants
him the right to the subsoil. Other
wise when an underground railway
for instance, is constructed without
injuring the buildings or any other
demnify the owners of the surface
winch WOulQ D0 1HdUH1ISodUAS illu III
| everyway unjustified. In a similar
(, form, the right of the owner of the
surface extends upwards. 1t would
! be absurd, however, were he to COM
plain of a violation of his right
whenever an aerosat or an airplane
should fly over his property. Hence
the necessity for an over of the sur
face to perform some positive act
that is to- say, any act showing al
least his intention of appropriation
and only in this case he shall have ar
acquired right.
! The legislation on the matter under
reference does not aim at lucrative
purpose nor is it intended thereby
to obtain any advantage, but only
to apply a principle Of internal pub
lie law traditional in the country and
furthermore, to define the situation
and resolve our problems through
laws establishing a criterion and ar
equal system with guarantees fol
everybody. The right of the natior
on deposits. of certain substances ex-
isting in the subsoil, does not con.
| secrate an extraordinary principle
The supreme court of tie Philippines