Douglas daily dispatch., 1927-05-19

and land controversy between the
United States and Mexico rests upon
o real grievance on the part OF
American interests, but not one that
justifieS, under such sanctions OF In
ternational law, any sort OF forcible
intervention in the internal affairs
OF that nation, state report made
public today by the department. OF
research and education OF the Fed
eral council of churches.
The report is the result OF several
months investigation by the DEPART
ment of research and education and
is introduced as a strictly intorma-
tional document which disclaims
any intention to suggeSt what course
either government should follow.
The petroleum law OF 1925, says
the report, is found to have confisca-
tory features and to be at variance
with the understandings arrived at
in 1928 as a prelude to the recogni-
ton of the Mexican government by
the United States. The report points
out at the same time that such vio-
lence as has been done to American
property rights arises out OF Sover-
eigYl acts OF the Mexican republic IN
the adoption OF her constitution and
the enactment OF domestic legisla-
ton, and that in the present state
Of international relations each ma
ton. including the United States,
demands the right to be the Judge
Of its own domestic laws, always
subject to The limitation that ii the
operation OF these laws results III
violation of rights under internation-
al law the victim OF any resulting in
Justice may demand, through his
government, redress in forms pre-
scribed by international law
The department investigated the
oil and land situation in all its
phases and presents what its con-
siders to be the major points OF the
controversy. The report says:
1.-The question at issue i'll the Oil
dispute is one OF property rights
The government of the United States
claims that under the constitution OF
1917 and the law of 1925 property
rights are being taken from the Oil
companies without compensation
that article q OF the constitution,
and the law OF 1925 are confiscatory.
This point involves rights under Mex
lean law and under international
law.
"The oil companies believe that the
law of 1925 is corlfiScatory, nc matter
what may be the decision OF the
Mexican supreme court. But inter-
national law is the same for all ma
ti0as, and ii a Mexican law may be
treated as invalid under a rule OF
international law and inapplicable to
American owned property an act OF
congress or OF a state legislature may
also be called into question ii a
foreign government believes it to be
contrary to a precept CT international
law.
while there is no organ of inter
national law which can control the
legislature, executive and judiciary ot
an independent state and declare
their acts invalid, the operation OF
such acts may give rise to claim
for damages. The oil companies con-
tend that IN their case damages viii
not constitute adequate redress. They
maintain that they want the prop
erty, not an award OF damages which
an international arbitration tribuna1
may grant but actual payment OF
which would be problematic.
With reference to the land con-
troVersy, the report says:
'Prior to the controversy over tho
petroleum laws, which has recently
overshadowed everything else, the
land distribution program was the
Occasion for considerable dissaJ1s-
faction on the part OF foreign IN
vesJors and for controversy between
the governments Of Mexico and the
United States. Complaints made
against the government OF MevicU
sre as follows: That the amount Of
tered (tne assessed valuation plus
1O per cent? is too low; that tner0
has been undue delay in admins
tration; that in some instances In
dian villages have Illegally taken
possession OF lands and that nothing
has been done by the government Of
ficials to give redress to the owners
of the lands; that many estates have
been divided under state laws, with
out compensation; that valid cen.
cesSionS have been annulled that
for many years interest has not been
paid on state bonds; that bonds are
unacceptable for payment because
they would depreciate in value and
because a new revolution might make
them worthless.
From observations made in connec-
ton with the present study, it appears
that there is substantial ground fol
some of these complaints"
After reviewing at length Spanish
and Mexican legal traditions as to
fvtyyanfcI1iY1 of SlIhS0i1 wealth the re-
port points out that the mining laws
under which the Oil companies titles
were taken, particularly the law Of
1909, purport to give subsoil petroleum
to the owner of the surface.
However, the Mexican supreme court
in the famous anparo cases, decided
in effect, that the mining law of 1909
had offered to the owners of the sur
face the right to exploit oil lying be-