Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-01-17
MAY EASE OIL CRUX
BY CLAIMS TREATY
MexiCan-American Conven-
ton Affords Tribunal for
Solution of Friction.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.


has been indefinitely postponed. The
United States Government has decided
to await the outcome OF the litigation
begun in the Mexican courts by Amer
lean oil companies. and also the de
Cision by the General Claims Com
| mission of such cases as may be
placed before il relating to contisCa
ton OF oil lands under the much
| mooted article % of the Mexican
| constitution
Diplomacy has exhausted the sub
iect, so far as the Department of State
is concerned in that both sides have
made plain their respective viewpoints
and the deadlock is on a matter of
legal Interpretation. There has been
| some doubt about MexicO's attitude
| toward a decision by the General
| Claims Commission. but the American
| Government feels that, having given
a solemn treaty pledge, Mexico can
not fail to weigh the consequences
Of any refusal to abide by the COM
missions decisions.
In nay event refusal to accept
treaty verdict which amounts to an
| arbitration would make, it is felt.
/ stronger case with American public
| opinion for the severance of diplo-
| matte relations than the exchange of
| diplomatic notes and lengthy cor
respondence. which forms the basis of
| the present debate.
Includes Every Controversy.
The language of the general claims
| convention, which has been ratified
b ythe Mexican Congress Is well as the
United States Senate, is such that
while not referring to oil lands specif
ically, is sufficiently broad to include
every kind of controversy. The first
article reads:
"All claims against Mexico of citi
zenS of the United States. whether
corporations, companies, associations,
partnerships or individuals, for losses
or damages suffered by persons or
their properties, and all claims against
the United States by citizens of Mex
leo, etc. shall be submitted
to a commission of three members for
decision in accordance with the prin
ciples of international law, justice and
equity"
Mexico appoints a member and so
does the United States and a neutral
member is mutually agreed upon. The
commission has already been or
gained 1t will be noted that the
decisions may be in accordance with
1.-THE principles Of international law,
Justice and equity" This is a broad
used to take care of the oil con-
troversy because Ambassador Charles
E. Warren. who went to Mexico as
special envoy of President Harding,
had long conversations with the Next
can government on the oil question
before the general claims convention
was drafted.
Stand on Rights.
T,o FOL in hn If he
minutes of these conversations, Mex
leo stood her ground on the claim
that the laws she was making did
not violate the principles of interna
tional law. justice or equity. Her
contention was that any right which
existed prior to the making of the
constitution of 1917 was valid. pro
vded the right was actually exer
cised in some way either by a positive
act Of drilling or manifestation of
such purpose Mexico argued that
an unused right was subject to be
forfeited The United States argues
that any right for which money was
spent is a piece of property that
cannot be confscated by constitu-
ton or law without compensation.
So the cases that will go before the
commission will turn on that point
is compensation due American citi-
zens for the confiscation of rights
which they paid for but did not use?
The American authorities lean toward
the view that the whole theory of land
holding is that the owner has the
right to decide when he shall build on
the land or use it in some way. It is
conceded that Mexico can make such /
restriction on lands which are ac
quired after the Mexican constitution
has gone into effect. but that in the
law of nations the equitable course is
not to make such laws retroactive.
Convention Is Limited.
The one danger to the ultimate So
luton of the question is that the gen
eral claims convention does not pro
vide for an indefinite existence. There
is a provision. however, for extension
of the three year period for the ex-
animation of claims. This must be by
mutual agreement. If the decision is
against Mexico and she accepts the
Jurisdiction of the commission, the
question then will be whether consent
will be given for the indefinite exten-
sion of the life of the commission to
take care of all such future cases In
any event this is a bridge which will
not have to be crossed for two or
three years. as the commission has
enough cases TO keep it busy for that
length of time.
The method of settling the present
dispute by resort to the Claims
Commission has the advantage of saw
ing a Mexican administration consid-
cradle embarrassment. 1t has become
a matter of pride with the Mexican
legal authorities that they are right
in their contention, and that the Mex
lean government has periodically
stood on the constitution of 1917. The
commission may if it chooses ignore
the matter of right or wrong with ref
erence to the letter of the constitu-
ton and decide that for reasons of in
ternational equity the American own
ers are entitled either to a restitu.
tinn of their rights or compensation.
Ir other words, the way out for both
| Mexico and the United States can be
found in the operations of the present
treaty if Mexico shows a willingness
not to prejudice existing conditions