Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1918

File No. 812.512/2013

The Ambassador in Mexico ( Fletcher) to the Secretary of State

No. 1136

Mexico, June 19, 1918.

Sir: In continuation of my despatch No. 1121 of June 12 last, on the subject of the petroleum decree of February 19 last, I have the honor to enclose copy and translation of the memorial of the Mexican petroleum landowners addressed to President Carranza on this subject under date of June 11 last.

The memorial is respectfully and temperately expressed and sets forth the objections of the Mexican landowners to the said decree. I would invite the Department’s especial attention to the arguments advanced with reference to the retroactive and other unconstitutional features of the decree.

I have [etc.]

Henry P. Fletcher

[Enclosure—Translation]

Memorial presented to the President of the Republic by the owners of petroleum lands¹

Mexico, June 11, 1918.

Citizen President of the Republic: The undersigned, owners of petroleum lands, with office for the hearing and receiving of communications on Avenida Isabel la Católica No. 24, second floor, room 12, this city, respectfully state to you the following:

The decree of February 19, 1918, subsequently modified only with regard to the time allowed for persons interested to submit their manifestations to which the decree refers, and as to preferences in connection with the denouncement of those lands which under the said decree shall be considered vacant, affects our property and contract rights so greatly, violating at the same time in so evident a manner the guaranties given to us in Article 14 of the Constitution, that we are forced, much to our regret, to place before you this respectful protest.

It is based on reasons so weighty and just that we do not hesitate to believe that it will be well received by you, for the reason that, as you are inspired by a high spirit of justice and are animated by the most profound desire for the national welfare, it is certain that, once the matter has been brought before you in the proper light, you will cause to be put into effect immediately such steps as may be necessary.

Among these is one which is in itself imperative: The cancelation of the decree mentioned, together with that of the subsequent one to which reference is made, with a view to having things return to their former status, and thereby avoiding the serious damage to our rights and guaranties which those decrees would cause should they continue in effect and really be put into operation.

As they were issued by reason of the extraordinary powers which yon possess in Treasury matters, they can, under the same powers, be canceled.

The undersigned believe that by taking such action the Supreme Government will positively benefit thereby, since the time is not opportune for the enactment of legislation on the subject, on account of the lack of a full and well-established knowledge of the rights which should be respected and the true necessities which must be fulfilled, in order that the legislation enacted may be in conformity with the facts, and so that the three interests involved may be harmonized, that is, the landowners’s, those of exploring and exploiting persons or companies, and those of the Nation, which form a part of the rental system of the country.

In the nature of a general remark, we beg, Mr. President, to invite your kind attention to the following point:

The decree of February 19, as well as its subsequent amendment, were promulgated by the Executive of the Union, through the Department of the Treasury and Public Credit, with the undoubted purpose of enacting legislation on Treasury matters. However, it contains a provision, in Article 14, which refers to matters pertaining exclusively to the Department of Industry and Commerce, and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Department of the Treasury, in matters relative to which you were vested with extraordinary powers. In effect, Article 14 of the said decree covers a matter entirely foreign to the administrative duties of the Department of the Treasury and Public Credit, and entails the establishment of regulations covering a constitutional law which pertains to the Legislative Chambers of the Union, as called for by the Constitution.

Speaking specifically, the decree affects our rights, property as well as contract, in two ways:

1. As regards the payment of rentals stipulated and the royalty percentage granted us, under the contracts;

2. As regards the right of ownership itself, within the terms of Article 14 of the decree.

As regards rentals, provision is made for setting aside for the Government 10 per cent of the first 5 pesos per hectare, 20 per cent of the second 5 pesos, and 50 per cent of the excess when rentals exceed 10 pesos per hectare.

In the taxes is included 50 per cent of the royalties stipulated in contracts, payable in kind or money, as the Government may desire.

The first cause for protest logically presents itself in that, in establishing this form of taxation, it was the Government’s idea not that the taxes decreed should cover the requirements of the public administration within constitutional limits, but, being collectible only on a percentage basis and transitorily, they should serve to increase progressively the amount of the pension, fee, rental, royalty, or whatever it may be called, and thus establish recognition of the Nation’s right of ownership.

As regards the right of ownership itself, Article 14 of the decree provides that the sole failure to submit manifestations relative to contracts, boundary limits, names of proprietors owning surrounding lands, and certified copies to be attached, is sufficient to declare the lands free, and, therefore, open to denouncement.

Article 14 of the Constitution says:

No law shall be given retroactive effect to the prejudice of any person whatsoever. No person shall be deprived of life, property, possessions or rights without due process of law instituted before a duly created court in which the essential elements of procedure are observed and in accordance with previously existing laws.

The article, therefore, states that the guaranties and rights of man are the principle of non-retroactivity in laws and the supreme principles of life, liberty, property and possessions or rights.

The principle of non-retroactivity is authorized and sanctioned; and only by due process of law before courts already established, and in accordance with the formalities of the case, subject to previously existing laws, may a man be deprived of his life, liberty, property or possessions.

That is to say, no subsequent law, even though it should be constitutional, can deny recognition to rights created under previous laws which protected and traced the lines of human activity.

To deny recognition through subsequent laws to that which has been created and formed previously and in obedience to legal and constitutional acts in force, is equivalent to converting all right into uncertainty, and to placing in the hands of governments the most precious interests of man which are necessary for his existence and development, and which have not been granted by any lawmaker or creator of constitutions, but recognized simply as essential to political institutions.

Furthermore, the sanction of non-retroactivity contained in Article 14 of the Constitution is absolute, and has no limits nor exceptions.

In accordance with this constitutional text, liberty, life, and property are on the same level. Consequently, to deny recognition to any one of them is equivalent to a violation not only of the letter but of the spirit of the republican Constitution.

That which we state regarding these rights, we affirm as regards the principle of non-retroactivity, inasmuch as its object is to cover and protect those three rights of man; and even more, to guarantee the continuity of those three rights, by protecting fully the development of the human personality.

Then, this principle is basic; in the social order Article 14 of the Constitution can not be violated or denied recognition by any one nor by anything. It makes itself manifest in the Government in any of its branches as the supreme guide and the supreme interpreter of all its acts and decisions.

The principle that a country may at any time in its history adopt the government it wants or change radically certain principles, is not sufficient to justify the denial of the rights of man. It is sufficient to apply this principle with its entire force of logic to each of them to appreciate the absurdity thereof. Let us suppose, for instance, that instead of violations of the right of property, it should be a matter of the violation of life or liberty. There is no one who would not be shocked at the tremendous possible consequences. Ten, fifteen, one hundred millions of souls may not capriciously or arbitrarily take the life or the liberty of one citizen, and much less place in the hands of governments such tremendous power.

Now, what has been said of life and liberty is stated also of the right of property, inasmuch as, according to the Constitution, which contains the serious and mature thought of a political evolution, the right of ownership has the same value, constitutionally speaking, as the others.

The decree which has caused this protest and complaint violates, Mr. President, in the light of these principles, our property rights and those emanating from the contracts of lease, in a manner which is evidently unjustified, inasmuch as the Government is not applying laws previously issued, neither does it follow the essential forms of procedure, nor does it demand in accordance with such laws and procedure the participation stipulated in rentals and royalties before tribunals previously established.

Lastly, the right of ownership being denied recognition in Article 14 of the decree, as well as the clean titles upon which it is founded or the secular description upon which it rests (auction of public possessions, quiet and continuous, with proper title and recognized by the community and by all governments in their different constitutional capacities, central, state, and municipal governments, and this right having been accepted as the basis for the payment of all taxes since remote times, and by agreements and arrangements with the Federal powers, basis, likewise, upon which property has been registered in the public registries and the great public registry), this irrevocable and perpetual right is clone away with at one stroke of the pen, and with it the entire juridical right of the country, breaking violently its continuity in order that in an arbitrary manner all lands covered by it, together with the subsoil which forms an integral part thereof, may be passed to the ownership of the Nation.

Never has there been evidenced in so open and clear a manner the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, and it is against that violation that we protest most respectfully in the belief that we are acting in behalf of the true national interests, requesting of you, Mr. President, your attention and assistance in solving, with the serious consideration the case demands, this important and transcendental question.

Therefore, we ask of you, that by virtue of the extraordinary powers with which you are vested in the Treasury, the following be done:

1. To cancel the decree of February 19, 1918, and the subsequent amendment thereto relative to the period of time stipulated, and to the persons who may denounce free lands.

2. In view of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, to abstain from establishing regulations to govern the application of Article 27 thereof, until such time as the Congress of the Union, which is competent to do so, and in accordance with the constitutional forms and precepts, shall decide as to the manner in which Article 27 should be amended in all the parts thereof which may be in conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution, since that supreme precept is fundamental to constitutional order, and in it are found the rights of life, liberty, property, and the sanction of non-retroactivity.

We protest [etc.]

[Here follow signatures.]

1. A B C, Mexico City, June 19, 1918.