Show RE OF f OH LANDS rr Mexico Will Not Be Alt Alj Alt Al- Al t j lowed to Confiscate ca te t 1 I American Property Is j the View of Officials tv WASHINGTON 1 ASHINGTON Aug 27 vv W Reply to recent sta statements by oy members of President Carranza's Carranza's Car- Car ranz ranza's s 's official family in Mexico City to the effect that the Mexican government had a a. right to enact laws that would result In the confiscation of property owned by foreigners and that retroactive laws were Justifiable In international law was made by the American Association Association tion of ot Producers of Petroleum In Mexico in a letter presented today to the state tate department The newspapers for several days the letter said have car ried statements statements statements state state- ments emanating principally from Mexico City intended to justify article 27 of at the Mexican constitution of 1917 which declares that all petroleum In Inthe Inthe Inthe the republic belongs to the nation RIGHT TO CONFISCATE Cabrera and the others now plant themselves on the broad ground that in the public Interest the Mexican government can confiscate the private property of Americans and other foreigners without violating International In- In in j law According to their theory property rights such as the theall I oil all companies have acquired are subordinate subordinate sub sub- ordinate to the welfare of the Mexican I public and therefore can be wiped out This has been their real position from the beginning though it has undergone undergone undergone un un- un- un mild disguise from time to time They started out by citing American Jaw aw on the subject but it iti i was shown that American law is preciselY pre- pre the reverse of their contention and now they cite the French authorIty authority authority author author- ity Francois Laurent He is quoted as follows effect Laws may have retroactive when public interests are at stake The actual statement nt by Laurent droit civil vol I chap 4 sec see 31 w was sIt It is commonly argued that laws have retroactive effect when general Interest so demands because no right may be acquired against public interests inter- inter jests ests s s According to our view this Is 54 absolute 1 If private parties may Invoke against the application of a a. retroactive law only their interest impaired impaired impaired im im- im- im paired by that retroactive effect the impaired interest should cede before general Interest But when private parties have a right Impaired by the law the court may not In the name of general interest destroy or modify the right of foreign citizens Maintenance of 01 the rights is the greatest of ot all in in- in AUTHORITY OPPOSED So again it transpires that the au authority authority au- au relied on is squarely opposed t tp i their theory They have dropped the expostulation tion that the constitution and laws are not retroactive They now admit that they distinctly are and the sole and authority cited to prove that such t things may be proves to be plainly against their contention On such a base Is built up their Justification of ot s spoliation Their argument that to seize the oil oU lands from their rightful owners and turn them over to the Mexican government to develop would redound I to the public benefit is answered by I Ithe the record made in tho the management I of railways express companies and other industries so seized I All 11 these arguments have been care care- gully fully weighed by the state department I and the decision of this government was wa stated in the note not of April 2 1918 which protested against the specific I articles of the con constitution as contis- contis i tory The same conclusion was reached by the governments of at France England and Holland It Is stated by officials that Mexico will not be al allowed allowed al- al lowed to confiscate the oil pr properties |