Evening star., 1926-01-09
i. s. WARNS MEXICO
AGAIN AFTER LAND
LAW PROTEST FAILS
Firmly Worded Note Reit-
crates American Opposition
to Retroactive Terms.
DRASTIC ACTION HINTED
IF RELIEF is DENIED
Coolidge Stands Squarely Behind
Kellogg Statement That Repub-
lie Is Now on Trial

Kellogg Statement That Repub-
lie Is Now on Trial,
Formal representations against the
retroactive features of the new MeNl-
can anti-alien land law have been
fled with the Mexican foreign office
hv American Amba ssador Sheffield
The action of the Washington Gov
crnment was taken after prolonged
diplomatic interChanCeS, which failed
to remove either from the. land law
or the new petroleum act those fea-
lures which are held here TO violate
assurances given by the Mexican gov
ernment at the time diplomatic recog-
milton was accorded it by Washing
ton in 1928.
In informing the Mexican foreign
office of the displeasure resulting here
from the new Mexican laws. the State
Department has spoken in direct and
forceful terms of the injury 1t feels
will be done to American interests If
The legislation goes into effect. Both
statutes are based upon the celebrated
article 27 of the Mexican constitution,
sgainst the application of which the
protested.
Drastic Action Hinted.
The document presented by Ambas-
sador Sheffield does not say what steps
this Government may find it necessary
10 take if it is unable to obtain ade-
puate assurances for the protection of
property interests of Americans in
Mexico. 1t is considered probable. how
fA,at .lNal rai
resentations, supplementing the writ
ten document. may have given clear
indication of what may be expected.
There is every reason to believe that
President Coolidge and Secretary kel-
logg intend to stand squarely upon
the public declaration of Mexican
policy made some time ago by the Sec
retary. In this declaration Mr.. Kel-
logg said that the government of
Mexico is now on trial before the
world"
American Rights Lost.
'It should be made clear" he con-
tinued, that this Government will
continue to support the government in
Mexico only so long as it protects
American lives and American rights
and complies with its international en-
Ragements and obligations"
Although officials here are carefully
avoiding open comment on the pres
ent situation, in view of the diplo-
matte exchanges now in progress,
there is no doubt that State Depart
ment officials who have studied care
fully the new Mexican laws are con-
vinced they not only fail to protect
American interests, but affirmatively
violate these interests by compelling
! American citizens who have made
: bona fide investments south of the
border to either give them up entirely
or sell at a conf1scatory price.
Pledge Not Kept.
Ambassador Sheffield. in making his
representations against the land law,
has told the Mexican foreign office
plainly that this pledge has not been
kept. Article of the land law re-
quires that any alien who may have
or may acquire an interest in a MeXi
can company which has or may ac-
quire ownership of lands, waters and
their accessories. or concessions for
exploitation Of mines or combustible
minerals, shall waive his right to the
protection of his own government and
agree not to invoke such protection
under penalty of forfeiture of his in
terest In the company to the nation.
4 Article 3 of the law provides that in
Mexican agricultural companies, there
30 per cent of the total interests of
the company.
Article 4 stipulates that foreign in
terests in such companies in excess
of this so per cent may be retained
only until death in the case of indi-
vidual holders or for 10 years after
the act goes into effect as regards
corporations. with such holdings.
Interest Must Be Revealed.
Article Z requires aliens who have
any interest in the companies or
properties covered by the act to make
a declaration of such interest, before
the department of foreign relations
within year after promulgation of
he law.
1t has not been disclosed definitely
whether the representations already
made against the land law will be
hroadened to include also the petro-
leum act, but as examination of the
letter proceeds here 1t is becoming in
Creasingly evident that its operation
may have a serious effect on American
oil interests in Mexico.
Resources Given to Nation.
Article 27 of the constitution. about
which the whole controversy centers.
provides that regardless of the own
tl snip VI any given lIdCI u l.,
the oil and other mineral deposits
beneath the surface belong to the
ration. The writing of this disturb.
ing doctrine into the constitution took
place in 1917, and in itself created
much apprehension in Washington.
| During the negotiations of 1923, how
ever, Mexico agreed that the article
would not be so applied as to trans
gress legitimate oil rights acquired by
American citizens in good faith before
he constitution was adopted.
1t is the view of the State Depart
ment that under these provisions many
Americans who have paid for Mexi-
can lands or for stock in Mexican
companies would be forced out in a
manner amounting to indirect confis-
cation.
Prior to the PRONUNCIATION of the
constitution of 1917 Mexican law rec
o@nized that the owner of title to land
surface also owned title to petroleum
deposits beneath that surface. The
new law denies recognition to legally
acquired rights under the old law to
suhsurface deposits and makes re-
troactive application of article 81 of
he constitution despite the contra
dictory article IA of the same, which
declares mo law shall be given a
retroactive effect to the detriment of
any person whatsoever"
The new petroleum act also was
PROMULGATED in the face of the fact