OCR Text |
Show OPPOSE POLICY IF COKffll Carranza's Attitude on Petroleum Pe-troleum Question Condemned Con-demned by Americans. , . WASHINGTON', Oct. 4. In formal representations rep-resentations filed with the state department, depart-ment, the Association of Producers of Petroleum takes issue with recent declarations dec-larations made in Mexico City hy Leon Salinas, acting head of the Mexican department de-partment of industry and commerce and chief of the oil bureau of that department, depart-ment, justifying tho Curranza government's govern-ment's attitude on the confiscation question. ques-tion. Besides refuting statements by Salinas, the petroleum producers ugaln charge that the acts of the Carranza government against which they complain com-plain are in violation of tho laws of Mexico Mex-ico itself and In contravention of the accepted ac-cepted laws of nations. "It is admitted," says the statement, "that the question of proprietorship of coal lands in Mexico and the Spanish colonies was subject of contention; but nowhere in the Spanish grants or subsequent sub-sequent ordinances of the Spanish crown was petroleum treated as the king's patrimony pat-rimony or tho property of the nation. If any contention did exist It was set at rest in Mexico by the mining law of 1884. "Pefore this date neither coal nor petroleum pe-troleum had been developed in Mexico at all; the law of 1884 simply cleared up a matter in question. l-'rom that time, therefore, rights to coal and oil were acquired ac-quired by Americans under this law and the laws to the same effect of 1812 and 1910. By the expenditure of vast amounts of money, American individuals and companies com-panies have given a value to these lands relying upon the laws of Mexico. Their tenure was never questioned ; in fact, it was repeatedly ratified by acts of Mexican Mexi-can courts, and the Mexican government has since 1(J12 continuously recognized rights so acquired under Mexican law by collecting taxes upon the lands and upon the product "The Mexican government's contention that a mere change in constitutional precept (appearing in a constitution which itself prohibits any retroactive legislation, leg-islation, which precept against retroac-tive retroac-tive effect wan called to the attention of tho ambassador to the United States, with an assurar.ee that no law or constitutional consti-tutional provision would take effect retroactively ret-roactively in advance of the presentation of hi credentials in February, 1117), may operate to divest foreigners of rights legally acquire d has been well answered by protests of your department. In harmony har-mony with such protests, the me miters of this association have taken a united stand and refused to be trapped by any of the exigencies of Mexican government decrees demanding the performance of acts, the effect of which would be to acquiesce in the confiscation and render the American protests nugatory. "Because we have refused to admit the loss of our properties, the Mexican government gov-ernment has seen fit to refuse us permission per-mission to drill on our lands until we perforin such acts of acquiescence. The government has gone tu the extent of sending armed forces to stop the drilling of a well on a property of a member of this associa tion, which member had, in harmony with your protests, refused to acquiesce in confiscation of his properly. In other casi-s the Mexican government has granted rights to third parties under mining claims provided for in decree :i gainst whicli the American government has protested, and wells have bee.n and are being drilled on such lands by euch third parties. "In reply to Secretary Salinas's statement, state-ment, we beg to call your attention to the fact that the.-e acts, as is we'll known to you, are in open violation of the laws of Mexico under which our f nvestmen t of time, money and energy was made, and iolate the accepted law of nations." |