Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-01-23
DISPUTE DOWN
TO ARBITRATION OR COURTS
American Companies Stand Fair Chance of Coming
Out on Top-U. S. and Mexico Agree on Settle
men in Principle Only.

of whether or not Mexico has the
right to pass legislat ton confscating
American oil property
incidentally, the United States is
not anxious for Mexico to arbitrate
her right to pass laws, because this
might establish precedent. giving
Japan and other nations a chance to
challenge our right to pass laws limit
ing their immigration into this coun-
try.
Mexico is naturally skeptical about
arbitrating anything with the United
States because in four out of five ar
bltration cases between the two coun-
tries Mexico has always received the
little end of the decision.
In the one case. when the decision
favored Mexico. the United States re-
fused to accept 1t. This case was the
Charnizal arbitration convention of
1910 to decide the nationality of
large island named Chamizal in the
Rio Grande River near Ell Paso. which
has transferred from country to coun-
try by changes in the rivers course.
In 1911 Eugene La F'leur, Canadian
umpire of the commission. decided
that the original route of the Rio
Grande should be retraced and Cham
izal awarded to the country favored
by the rivers early course. probably
Mexico. The United States objected.
on the ground that is was impossible
to trace the rivers early course. AS
result the residents of Chamizal re-
main today technically without flag or
country. although the city of Ell Paso
endeavors to collect taxes from them.
Hague Tribunal F'avors U. S.
The only dispute between the
United States and Mexico ever taken
to The Hague tribunal was decided
against Mexico. 1t concerned the
'pious fund of the CALIFORNIA;"
trust fund started by the Jesuits in
the seventeenth century for the con-
version of the California Indians.
This fund was held by Mexico, and
after the annexation of California to
the United States in 1s4S Mexico re-
fused to pay any part of it to the
Catholic Church of California. After
more than half century of contro-
versy the issue went before The
Hague tribunal in 1902, where it was
decided that Mexico must pay the ac-
crued interest, amounting to $1,420,.
682.67. and $43,050.90 every year there
after in perpetuity
The claims convention of 1859, by
which the two countries settled the
claims of their respective citizens as
a. IeSull VI DOTQSf r2l0S, also went
against Mexico, American citizens re-
ceiving $4,125,622 and the Mexicans
getting S150,49S.41.
Charles Beecher Warren, former
Ambassador to Mexico, who drew up
the claims convention of 1923, has adj
vised President Coolidge to use this
commission, now functioning in Wash
ington, to arbitrate the present pc.
troleum dispute. The President is re-
ported to have the suggestion under
consideration.
Plan Court Action.
Meanwhile Mexico is taking steps
to bring the question into her own
courts. There are three reasons for
believing THAI the outcome of this
legal contest will be favorable to
American companies. First, the ques-
tion of confiscation has been up five
times before the Mexican Supreme
Court and each time it was decided
that the Mexican government could
not confiscate American property ac-
quired before 1917. Second, ceasing
of work by the American companies
would throw thousands out of work
and precipitake revolution Finally,
Mexico will not be able to borrow
money II tn issue is decided against
American add other foreign interests