From all this it is inferred that, in consonance with the rules universally accepted for the interpretation of laws and those imposed by sound logic, it must be held that paragraph 4 of article 37 [27] of our present Constitution is not retroactive, inasmuch as it does not damage former rights legitimately acquired. This precept establishes the nationalization of petroleum and its by-products as well as that of the other substances to which it refers, amplifying the enumeration that existed in our former mining laws, but respecting the rights legitimately acquired prior to May 1, 1917, the date on which the present Constitution went into effect in its entirety. CONSIDERING, third: In view of that which has been before expressed and in strict compliance with that which is established by section I of article 107 of the Constitution, it is opportune to determine whether in the present case, of which this amparo treats, vested rights have been injured by the violation of the individual guarantees as alleged by the complainants. In our Republic there have been in effect in successive periods the mining code of 1884; the mining law of June 4, 1892; and that of November 25, 1909, which in article 2 granted the owner of the land the right to explore and exploit oil freely in order to appropriate what he might find without the necessity of a permit from any authority; and it also granted him the right to transmit the said rights as he would any other property, either for a consideration or gratuitously. By virtue of this provision, Severiana Hernández, widow of Martínez, and her sons, acting under that law as joint owners of lot 36 of Zacamixtle, could explore and exploit oil in that land, and also transfer their rights by the exercise of this faculty, as they did in favor of Manuel S. Ravisé by virtue of the contract contained in the deed of April 28, 1917, in which it appears that the grantors fixed and received a price higher than would have been paid them for the surface of the land because it was not sought to cultivate the property or to build upon it, but to look for oil and to exploit it if found. So that the rights of the owners of the land which are granted in article 2 of the said law of November 25, 1909, were transferred by means of positive acts; and we are therefore dealing with vested rights acquired by Ravisé as to the exploitation and exploration of petroleum in the said Zacamixtle lot from the date of that contract, that is, before the present Constitution began to be effective in its entirety. The purchaser, Manuel S. Ravisé, could legally transmit those rights and he actually did in favor of the Texas Company of Mexico, S.A., by a deed dated September 21 of the same year, and it is therefore beyond discussion that this company could in its turn enjoy the said rights as legally obtained. In view of the legal status of the Texas Company of Mexico, S.A., when the present Constitution came into force, and as regards their rights to the said lot 36 of Zacamixtle, the fact that the Department of Industry, Commerce, and Labor, which is a department of the Executive power, issued a title to explore and exploit the petroleum belonging to the said lot in favor of Rafael Cortina, based upon the decree of August 8, 1918, which presupposes the direct ownership by the Nation of the petroleum existing in the subsoil of the Republic, constitutes assuredly a retroactive application of the said decree and a dispossession of the rights of exploration and exploitation already mentioned, without any legal basis, violating thereby the guarantees set forth in article 14 and article 27, paragraph 2 of the present Constitution. In view of these facts and of those contained in the foregoing finding, which serve as a basis in determining the proper application of paragraph 4 of article 27 of our basic law in the sense that it is not retroactive in the present case, it is not admissible, nor may we legally sustain the contrary opinion issued by the judge of the inferior court in the suit under revision; and it is therefore declared that without a violation of these individual guarantees the plaintiff company could not be deprived of the said rights which it obtained legally from Manuel S. Ravisé, who in his turn acquired them legally by virtue of a purchase for value made from Severiana Hernández, widow of Martínez, and her sons. From the foregoing we rule: First: The decision under revision issued by the first proprietary district judge of the Federal District, dated February 17, 1921, which refused the amparo prayed for in the federal court by the Texas Company of Mexico, S.A., is revoked. Second: The justice of the Union protects and aids the Texas Company of Mexico, S.A., against the act of the President of the Republic and the Department of Industry, Commerce, and Labor, which consists in having issued to Rafael Cortina a title to explore and exploit the petroleum contained in lot 36 of Zacamixtle, Municipality of Tancoco, Canton of Tuxpam, State of Vera Cruz. Let this be published and distributed; let the necessary stamps be affixed; and let the papers, with a certified copy of this resolution, be returned to the court whence they proceeded, and the docket in due time filed. Thus by unanimous vote of eleven Justices as to the final part of the decision and by a majority of eight votes as to the legal bases, the Supreme Court decided. The President of the Court, Moreno, did not deem it necessary to examine the articles in the complaint regarding the extraordinary powers granted to the President, condemnation of property for public utility, or dispossession without a prior suit, his vote being based solely on the ground that paragraph 4 of article 27 of the Constitu- Enrique Moreno, President; Alberto González, Adolfo 812.6363/1007: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin) WASHINGTON, October 13, 1921—4 p.m. 134. Referring decision Texas Company's case, telegraph obtainable information these points: In deed of April 28, 1917, from Martinez family to Ravise, was specific mention made of petroleum rights? Did the Texas Company buy the land from Ravise or lease it or the oil rights, and if there was a purchase or lease of the land itself, was specific mention made of the petroleum rights? Did Ravise or the Texas Company conduct any operations on the land for exploring or exploiting petroleum deposits? HUGHES 812.6363/1012: Telegram The Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin) to the Secretary of State [Paraphrase] MEXICO, October 19, 1921-11 a.m. [Received 7:01 p.m.] 194. Department's telegram no. 134. Texas Company's represent ative furnished me following data on subjects desired: 1st. In deed to Ravise from the Martinez family petroleum rights were specifically mentioned. 2d. The Texas Company did not purchase the land but bought the lease or contract from Ravise. Ravise was to have 5% of the petroleum secured from the land. 3d. Neither Texas Company nor Ravise conduct any operations on land covered by contract. SUMMERLIN PROTEST BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST AGRARIAN 812.52/505 68 The Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin) to the Secretary of State No. 3496 MEXICO, November 26, 1920. SIR: I have the honor to report that to-day's press publishes the draft of a proposed agrarian law which, it is said, will be submitted to the Congress by President-elect Alvaro Obregón, shortly after his inauguration. The main features of the Bill are as follows: The following lands shall be expropriated for distribution, such areas as are needed to be taken in accordance with this law: The large landed estates; Lands which have been idle for five years past; Lands cultivated by primitive and antiquated methods. Lands cultivated according to modern methods shall not be expropriated in so far as concerns the area necessary to make a complete agricultural whole; not less than five and not over twenty hectares may be granted to any one individual; the parcels adjudicated may not be the subject of sales contracts, mortgages, usufruct, or any other transaction limiting the right of ownership, nor may they be embargoed; " the rights under this law granted to recipients of lands, shall become void upon failure to cultivate the land during a period of one year. The Local Agrarian Commissions are empowered to receive and handle petitions and the National Agrarian Commission is authorized to decide upon them and then request the Executive to order the required expropriations. 89 The rights under this law shall be exercised by Mexicans only. Mexicans already owning over twenty hectares of land shall be excluded. Petitioners must prove they are of industrious habits and fully able to cultivate the land. 88 For previous correspondence concerning agrarian legislation, see Foreign Relations, 1919, vol. I, pp. 614 ff. I.e., attached. Payment for expropriated lands is to be made by the Government to the owner in twenty-year agrarian bonds redeemable in twenty annual payments of principal plus interest of not over five per cent. Recipients shall pay the Government for lands granted, on the basis of the amount paid to the owner, plus five per cent. for cost of survey and division. The value of the lands expropriated shall be the registered tax valuation plus ten per cent., or in the absence of such data, the value shall be fixed by experts. I have [etc.] GEORGE T. SUMMERLIN 812.52/565 The Acting Secretary of State to the Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin) WASHINGTON, January 15, 1921. No. 1501 For the Acting Secretary of State: 812.52/575 The Chargé in Mexico (Summerlin) to the Acting Secretary of State No. 3601 MEXICO, January 19, 1921. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith the translation of a law enacted by the Mexican Congress, and published in the Diario Oficial of the eighth instant, prescribing the procedure to be fol |