World Affairs Institute

OUR PROBLEM WITH MEXICOSource: Advocate of Peace through Justice, Vol. 88, No. 2 (FEBRUARY, 1926), pp. 71-73Published by: World Affairs InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20661150 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 08:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

World Affairs Institute and Heldref Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Advocate of Peace through Justice.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.147 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:43:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1926 EDITORIALS 71

in the general elections of last fall, then made minister of war, set about the busi ness of declaring himself president. When Carlos Solozano, the actual presi dent, duly elected, was forced to resign, Chamorro assumed the presidency by a

coup d'4tat, January 17. The vice-presi dent, Juan B. Sacara, now in Washington, had not resigned; but the Congress of

Nicaragua, under the heel of Chamorro, voted to oust this vice-president from office and to forbid his return to Nica

ragua for two years. Latest dispatches indicate that the United States and the other Central American States will not

recognize the self-appointed dictator,

holding that Vice-President Sacara is the

legal head of the Nicaraguan Government. It is expected that this will bring on a

revolution in Nicaragua. Referring to

the attitude of the United States, La Prensa says editorially that the paper has

had "few occasions to approve so heartily of the attitude of the United States."

La Prensa recognizes that the condition

of affairs in Nicaragua has been produced by intrigues. In the presence of similar

intrigues, the United States and Cen tral American States had signed a treaty in which they agreed not to recognize governments set up by force. There is

every indication that Chamorro has not

only violated the letter and the spirit of this treaty, but that he has also violated

the constitution of his own country. La

Prensa points out that history will make no mistake in this instance; that many

chapters, not so clear in their deductions,

might be written on former cases of this sort in Central America. But this gov ernmental crisis in Nicaragua, brought about by and for the personal benefit of a

former president and one-time minister to

Washington, cannot possibly be blamed

npon any one other than those who have

brought it about. The United States is

acting in defense of a treaty and is oppos

ing the recognition of the right of physi cal force to rule a country whose sovereign rights are thereby destroyed. Foreign in

fluence, therefore, is now to be felt in

Nicaragua solely because of the acts of a

misguided faction. "There is no use of

talking loudly of 'imperialism' here," says La Prensa; "there is naught of it, not even a shadow of it, in the present attitude of

Washington." This is confirmation num

ber one.

There is another. "The United States is keeping a solemn

promise," says La Prensa, "made repeat

edly to Hispanic America. Governments established by force, it has stated, must be ended. . . . We hope that the conces

sions and brilliant promises may not turn the Secretary of State from his expressed policy. After denouncing, justly, the holders of power obtained illegally, it would be a scandal to treat with them in

exchange for such concessions or prom ises." This is good doctrine.

The policy of the United States toward

Nicaragua in this situation seems justified in politics and in morals. It is for Nica

ragua to demonstrate that she will not en dure a president who holds his office by no mandate except the sword.

OUR PROBLEM WITH MEXICO

'T IE announcement, January 9, that our government had made formal

representations to Mexico against certain features of the new Mexican land law pre sents no new situation. Gossip to the effect that we "may withdraw our recog nition" of Mexico is also now an old story.

The crux of the whole problem now, as

during the administrations of Presidents

Taft, Wilson, and Harding, is this: Is Mexico planning to adopt retroactive leg islation that will mean the confiscation of

property in Mexico owned by citizens of the United States?

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.147 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:43:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

72 ADVOCATE OF PEACE February

Section 1 of Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution provides that only Mexicans, by birth or naturalization, and Mexican

companies have the right to acquire own

ership in lands, waters, and their appur tenances, or to obtain concessions to de

velop mines, waters, or mineral fuels in the Republic of Mexico. The. same sec tion provides further, however, that the nation may grant the same right to for

eigners, provided they agree before the De

partment of Foreign Affairs to be consid ered Mexicans in respect to such property and accordingly not to invoke the protec tion of their governments in respect to the same." It further provides: "Within a zone of 100 kilometers from the frontier or within 50 kilometers from the seacoast, no foreigner shall, under any conditions,

acquire direct ownership of lands and waters."

Our government raises no question as to the right of Mexico to adopt such a consti tution or to pass legislation of such a kind. The question which agitated this

country greatly when this section of the Constitution was adopted, in 1917, and which has agitated our country from time to time since, is: Does that section of the Constitution apply to citizens of the United States who owned properties con

trary to these provisions before the pro visions were adopted? If so, Mexico may have done violence to the rights of Ameri can citizens by practicing an indirect confiscation. When trouble over this matter first

arose, it was pointed out that the Mexican Constitution contains elsewhere a provi sion against retroactive application of laws to be framed under it. Indeed, the

Mexican Supreme Court proceeded to hold in five specific cases that Article 27 could not be given retroactive effect. Be cause of this, we have found it possible heretofore to iron out our difficulties with Mexico.

The cause of the new outbreak of feel

ing is found in the new land law, which has passed both houses of the Mexican

Congress and which has been promul gated, although not yet in effect. Article 2 of this new law contains these words: "In order that an alien may form part of a Mexican company which may have or

may acquire ownership of lands, . . .

he shall satisfy the requirements set out in the same section of Article 27 of the Constitution." A new petroleum bill sets forth substantially the same requirements. These new laws seem to deny recognition to legally acquired rights under the old law for subsurface deposits and make ret roactive application of Article 27 of the Constitution. That is one of the new causes of trouble. Furthermore, it has been held by the Mexican Supreme Court where an owner of surface title, or of sub surface rights legally acquired from a surface title holder under pre-constitu tion mining laws, has performed certain

specified positive acts of exploitation within a fixed period of time, he has made

good his legal rights to such deposits. This so-called "positive-act" doctrine seems to have been scrapped by the new

petroleum bill. It is thought also that the new act ignores the preferential rights of surface owners to exploit oil deposits, heretofore recognized.

While Mexico is exercising her rights as a sovereign nation, there is little evi dence that there is any cause for alarm. It is within the power of the Mexican President to declare that the new laws are not to be retroactive. It does not seem reasonable that Mexico will resort to con fiscation or to repudiation without full

compensation. It is an encouraging fact that where foreign interests have resorted to the Mexican courts, their rights in all instances have been sustained. We under stand that President Coolidge takes the attitude that our United States must be

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.147 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:43:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1926 EDITORIALS 73

patient with Mexico; that our neighbor to the south has her difficulties; that the

points of view among the Mexican people are different from ours; that we should be

helpful, in every possible way, instead of

trying to oppress our Mexican friends in

any manner. The attitude of the Mexi

can Government is similarly friendly. The Department of Industry and Com merce in Mexico issued a statement,

January 13, in which are these words:

"This department wishes to indicate the

application of the laws in the most ample

spirit in equity, and invites the oil com

panies to send representatives to explain their point of view regarding their appli cation." The Minister of Trade and Com

merce, in an exclusive statement to the

Associated Press, January 16, said: "The

Mexican Government has only one desire

in its relations with the petroleum in

dustry-to make it each day more im

portant. The co-operation of all com

panies, foreign and Mexican, is welcomed.

There is no reason for doubting the spirit of abundant welcome with which Mexico

always has received and always will re

ceive foreign business men who are dis

posed to comply with the laws of the

Mexican Republic. . . . The only thing the Mexican Government cannot offer for

eigners are privileges not enjoyed by Mexican investors themselves."

The improvement shown over previous "crises" is indicated by the fact that our

press has not raised the usual war-cry. It is apparent that our people are study

.ing the Mexican problem with more calm ness than formerly. We are more inclined

to grant that Mexico should be given a

free hand in the development of her gov ernment and territory. Our statesmen

and business men see more clearly that

precipitate and threatening attitudes are

fruitless. They are relying more upon

prudence and upon intelligent discussion.

They seem to understand better the Mexi

can sensitiveness in regard to interference with her private affairs. This is all hope ful. Neither the United States nor any other country, much less Mexico, cares to suffer any interruption to the advantages afforded by foreigners in that rich terri

tory. The processes of common sense

are more apparent just now than in any of our controversies with Mexico during the last ten years.

OUR COUNTRY'S ATTITUDE TO WARD THE WORLD COURT

T

HE question whether or not our

United States should be a member of a world court of international justice would be answered in the affirmative, un

doubtedly, by a large majority of our

people. And yet our attitude toward the

proposal that we adhere to the existing Permanent Court of International Justice seems to be neither dignified nor hopeful.

We seem to be maneuvered into a false

position. Even the issue is not clear. Are we asked to join a League Court, or a World Court? If a World Court, why these reservations, indicating that there

may be danger of some sort lurking around the institution? Entering the

court with reservations is an unhappy makeshift, complimentary neither to the court nor to ourselves. If the court is the

court we wish, we should join it, heads up and unafraid. If the court is a court we

cannot approve wholeheartedly, we should

stay out until it is changed to our liking. Statesmen differ widely about the issue

and about the manner in which it should

be met. On the opening day of Congress,

Congressman Tinkham, of Massachusetts, introduced a resolution calling for a third

Hague Conference by the United States

for the establishment of a Permanent In

ternational Court of Justice representing

directly the sovereign nations, and for the

codification of international law. S. 0.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.147 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:43:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions