Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T13:48:39.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Land and Petroleum Laws of Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

John P. Bullington
John P. Bullington*
Affiliation:
Of the Texas Bar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The legal nature of property in mines has been the subject of much discussion, and varies, not only with the different systems of law, but also in different countries accepting the same legal system. In Roman law, the owner of the soil was theoretically considered to own all beneath the surface to the center of the earth, and all above it to the heavens, though there is considerable evidence that at one period of the Roman law the property in mines was separate from that of the surface. It is fairly certain, too, that the State was deemed to have an interest in mines and entitled to a portion of the profits.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 1928 , pp. 50 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1928

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mispoulet, ,Le Régime des Mines à and l'Epoque Romaine et au Moyen Age, Paris, 1908, pp.62-65. See also pp.54.Google Scholar

2 Rockwell's Spanish and Mexican Law, N. Y., 1851, pp. 124-125.

3 Planiol, Droit Civil (8* éd., 1920), No. 2392.

4 Rockwell, op. cit., 126.

5 Hall, The Laws of Mexico (1885), pp.356-357.

6 Case of the Mines (1568), 1 Plowden 310.

7 Bainbridge v. Esquimalt, etc. Ry. (1894), 4 B. C. 181.

8 40 Corpus Juris, 758.

9 Case of the Mines, supra.

10 The laws and codes are collected in Thompson, Petroleum Laws of All America, Washington,Govt,. Printing Off., 1921, p.490 et. seq. See also, Holding of Real Estate and Acquisition of Mines, etc. by Aliens in Foreign Countries, Great Britain, Foreign Office, 1922;and Velarde, Historia del Derecho de Mineria etc., Buenos Aires (1919), 146, 163, 180, 198.

11 See Ise, The United States Oil Policy, New Haven, 1926, p. 478; and the British Petroleum Production Act of 1918 (Chitty's Statutes, 6th ed., 949); French Finance Act (not yet passed the Senate), April 4, 1926, Art. 53 (Dalloz, Receuil Periodique et Critique, 1926,4 partie, p. 163); Spanish measures reported in United States Daily, Nov. 12, 1927, p. 1,col. 3; Norwegian Law of 1906 (34 Clunet, 983).

12 For a short history of the position of petroleum in the Mexican mining laws see Santanella,“ El Derecho Sobre el Petroleo,” in La Industria Petrolera, Mexico, Poder Ejecutivo Federal,1919.

13 Rockwell, op. cit., 129.

14 Colamo, J., La Ley Mexicana del Petroleo y su Reglamento, Mexico, 1926. (Mimeograph), pp.3.

15 Idem., p. 3; Rockwell, op. cit., 49.

16 An English translation is found in Hall, op. dt., App. III.

17 Velarde, op. cit., pp.132-133.

18 The law is translated in Wheless, Compendium of the Laws of Mexico, St. Louis, 1910, pp.570. See also pp.>981.

19 See this Journal Vol. XXI, pp.685.

20 Texas Co. of Mexico, S. A. v. Secretaria de Industria et al., 9 Seminario Judicial, 432;International Petroleum Co. v. Agente de Petroleo, 10 Sem. Jud. 1189; Tamiahua Pet. Co. v. Sec. de Indus, et al., 10 Sem. Jud. 1190; id., 10 Sem. Jud. 1190; International Pet. Co. v.Sec. de Indus, et al., 10 Sem. Jud. 886.

21 For an explanation of the Mexican practice see “ The Writ of Amparo Under Mexican Law,” by Associate Justice Benito Flores, 7 Journ. Amer. Bar Assn. 388, and Schuster,“ The Texas Company's Amparo Case,” 7 id., 583.

22 Proceedings of the United States-Mexican Commission Convened at Mexico City, May-14,1923, Department of State: Washington, D. C., especially pp.47-48.

23 American Property Rights in Mexico, Department of State, Washington, 1926, pp.10-13.

24 E.g., The Mavrommatis Concession Case (Great Britain v. Greece) decided by the Permanent Court of International Justice.

25 For references to these laws see this Journal , Vol. XXI, pp.686-687.

26 Maitland's Gierke, Political Theories of the Middle Ages, Cambridge, 1900, pp.74-79.

27 Id., Compare the English theory that the ultimate (allodial) tenure of all lands is in the Crown, the individual having only certain lesser tenures. See Allen, The Royal Prerogative in England, London, 1849, pp.125-155.

28 Gierke, orp. cit., pp. 80,180, notes 276, 277.

29 (1789), Art. 2. See also the Constitution of 1848, Art. 3.

30 Maine, Art. I, Sec. 1; New Hampshire, Part I, Art. 2; Vermont, Chap. I, Art. 1; Massachusetts,.Part I, Art. 1; Pennsylvania, Art. IX, Sec. 1.

31 See the excellent study of Haines, “ The Law of Nature in State and Federal Judicial Decisions” (1916), 25 Yale Law Journ. 617. See also Ritchie, Natural Rights, London,1924, pp.263-271.

32 Notable examples are the two volume work of Lasalle, Dos System der Erworbenen Rechte, Leipzig, 1861, and Gabba's work in four volumes, Teoria della Retroattivitd, delle Leggi, Torino, 1891. See also the lengthy discussion of Savigny, Romisches Reckt, Berlin,1848, vii, pp.381-514.

33 E.g., Gierke, Deutsches Privatrecht, i, 192; Merlin, Repertoire, Paris, 1827, v, Sec. 3, p.536; Baudry-Lacantinerie, Prids de Droit Civil, Paris, 1905, i, 28. See the interesting article on the conception of “ vested rights” in the United States courts, by Smith, Bryant ,“ Retroactive Laws and Vested Rights,” 5 Tex. Law Rev. (1927), 231 Google Scholar.

34 34 Yale Law Journ. (1925), 303. Cf. Munn v. Illinois (1876), 94 U. S. 113, and Tyson and Brother v. Banton (1926), 47 Sup. Ct. 426.

35 American Property Rights, etc., passim.

36 Art. 15, Organic Law.

37 N. Y. Times, Jan. 22, Feb. 8, 17, 19, 1927.

38 88N. Y. Times, Dec. 3, 1926, pp.2.

39 N. Y. Times, Jan. 26, 30, 1Feb. 3,927. It is reported that the Mexican Supreme Court has recently held that the cancellation of these permits was unconstitutional. However,the opinion has not yet been made public, so that no consideration can here be given to its effect.

40 Texas Co. v. Daugherty (1915, Tex.), 176 S. W. 717.

41 Westmoreland Gas Co. v. DeWitt (1889, Pa.), 18 Atl. 724.

42 Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana (1900), 177 U. S. 190.

43 Dixon v. People (1897), 168 111. 179.

44 Organic Law, Art. 8, Sec. VII.

45 Chaplin, Suspension of the Power of Alienation, N. Y., 1911, Secs. 20-21.

46 A railroad in the United States may not because of its own desire retire from business.State of Texas v. Eastern Texas Ry. (1922), 258 U. S. 204; Atl. Coast Line v. No. Car.Comm. (1907), 206 U. S. 1. As to land purchased for speculative purposes, see Village of Euclid f. Ambler Realty Co. (1926), 272 U. S. 365.

47 Arts. 69 and 141 of Regulations.

48 Compare New York Public Lands Law, Art. VII, Sec. 80. Cf. The French Mining Law of 1810 (Art. 552 of Civil Code), Lengereau, Essai sur la Nature Juridique de la Propriite Minito-e, Toulouse, 1922, 15-35.

49 The Delagoa Bay Railway Case, Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II, pp.1870.

50 Mr. Kellogg to Sr. Saenz, January 28, 1927.

51 American Property Rights, etc., pp. 5, 18-19.

52 Presidential decisions (acuerdos) of Jan. 17, 1920, and Jan. 8, 1921.

53 In every international case reviewed in this Journal , Vol. XXI, p. 685, in which there was a total extinction of property interests, compensation was successfully demanded.

54 American Property Rights, etc., 27.

55 Compare the language of Holmes, J., dissenting in Tyson and Bro. t>. Banton (1926), 47 Sup. Ct. 426, 433.

56 For an excellent short history of the matter see Phipps, “ Some Aspects of the Agrarian Question in Mexico,” 1925, Univ. of Texas Bull. No. 2515.

57 de Negri, op. cit., 10. The Constitution of 1857 in its Art. XXVII forbade ecclesiastic and civil corporations to own land. By bringing the communes under the head of civil corporations it was possible to expropriate their lands “ legally.” CoUecci6n de Leyes Sobre Tierros, Secretaria de Fomenio, Mexico, 1913, pp.16.

58 Phipps, op. cit., 108-109.

59 de Negri, Recopilaci6n Agraria, 1924, Mexico, 34. In English, Hackett, C. W., “ The Mexican Revolution and the United States, 1910-1926,” World Peace Foundation Pamphlet,Vol. IX, No. 5, 1926, pp.403 Google Scholar.

60 Proceedings, etc., pp. 26,32. See also the note of Sr. Pani to the American ChargS d'affaires, quoted ibid., pp.28. Attention is also directed to the article of Col. Breckinridge, J. C. ,“ Land Ownership in its Relation to Stability,” The Annals of the Amer. Acad, of Pol. and Soc. Science, Nov. 1927, pp.207 Google Scholar.

61 Ibid. 29. The matter of requiring payment to be made in cash at the time of the taking is a doubtful one. See award of The Hague Court of Arbitration in United States v. Norway, this Journal , Vol. XVII, pp. 362, 385, 386. Cf. Baty, International Law, N. Y.,1909, pp.85.

62 Proceedings, etc., pp. 33, 34, 37. President Coolidge seems to have accepted thismethod of payment. N. Y. Times, April 26, 1927, p.10, c. 6.

63 Proceedings, etc., pp.29.

64 A similar question is raised in cases of moratory legislation affecting private contracts.During the Franco-Prussian war French legislation seriously affected the rights of British parties to French contracts. An English court, however, gave effect in England to the legislation. Rouquette v. Overmann (1875), L. R. 10, Q. B. 525. The difficulties attending such legislation are discussed by Lorenzen, “ Moratory Legislation Relating to Bills and Notes, etc.,” 28 Yale Law Journ. (1919), 324.

65 Many of the smaller States of Europe have adopted similar systems in the breaking up of large landed estates. The extraordinary economic conditions in post-war Europe made it possible for lands in many cases to be expropriated without any real compensation. The method of valuation as well as the means of payment have been subjected to much criticism.See in general, Fromme, The Republic of Esthonia and Private Property, Berlin,1922; La Constitution de la Lettonie (Thkse), Toulouse, 1925, pp. 101-111; Odobestianou, La Proprittt Agraire en Roumanie, Paris, 1925, p. 67 ff.; Bouroff, La Riforme Agraire en Bulgarie,Paris, pp. 110 ff.; Weller, Agrarian Reform in Esthonia, Berlin, 1922; Harrison,Lithuania, Past and Present, London, 1922, pp. 129-132; Martna, L 'Esthmie, Paris, 1921,pp. 238-240; Yovanovitch, Constitution du Royaume des Serbs, Croates el Slovenes, Paris,1924, pp. 320-334; Sibert, “ La Loi Agraire Lithuanienne,” 32 Rev. Gin. de Droit Int. Pub.(1925), 5; Bellot, “ The Protection of Private Property,” 1 Rev. de Droit Int. (1926), 5.

66 Proceedings, etc., pp.31-34.

67 For a detailed discussion of what constitutes a “ denial of justice” see Borchard, op. at,,330-343.

68 Alien Land Law, Diario Oficial, Jan. 21, 1926. Regulations of Alien Land Law,Dtario Oficial, March 29,1926.

69 Aide Memoire handed by the American Ambassador to the Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs by instructions from the Secretary of State, Nov. 27, 1925.

70 American Property Rights, etc., pp. 4, 24.

71 Note 69, supra. Cf. Art. 170, Rev. Civ. Stat. of Texas, 1925, the provisions of which are almost identical with Art. 6 of the Mexican Alien Land Law.

72 American Property Rights, etc., 23.

73 Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490, 493.

74 Pullen v. Comm, of Wake City (1872), 66 N. C. 361, 363; United States v. Fox (1876),94 U. S. 315.

75 However, Mexico has numerous treaties whichwould be breached by a full application of the law. De Cosio, “El Articulo 87 de la Constitution General de la Republica en Relation con los Traiados Celebrados entre Mexico y las Nationes Extranjeros,” in Documentos Relationados con la Legislation Petrolera Mexicana, Mexico, 1922, ii, 116. The theoryof the rebus sic stantibus clause has been invoked to excuse those breaches. MacGregor, “ i La Fraction I del Articulo B7 de la Constitution Viola los Traiados Celebrados por Mexico con Algunaa Nationes Extrajerost ” Ibid., 120. It suffices to say that the place of the rebus sic stantibus theory in international law is decidedly questionable. Generally on the question see Schmidt, t)ber die Vdlkerrechtliche Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus, 1911, esp. pp.26-92.

76 Borchard, op. cit., Sec. 21, mentions that the minimum standard probably prevents a State from denying completely the alien's right of succession to property, or of obtaining the proceeds from its sale.

77 Sr. Saenz to Mr. Kellogg, March 27, 1926.

78 Cf. Art. 4 of the Organic Law and Art. 156 of its Regulations.

79 Borchard, op. cit., 795.

80 Moore, Digest, VI, 293-328. See also note of Mr. Kellogg to Sr. Saenz, Jan. 28,1926.

81 American Property Rights, etc., 9-10, 14-15.

82 The cases decided by international tribunals are collected and discussed in Ralston,Law and Procedure of Arbitral Tribunals, Stanford, 1926, 58-72. For a general discussion of the problem see Borchard, op. cit., 782-810. Charles Cheney Hyde contributes an editorial on the subject in this Journal , Vol. XXI, pp.298.

83 Borchard, op. cit., 800.

84 This Journal , Vol. XX, pp.800. Commented on by Borchard ill XX, ibid., 536, 538.

85 Borchard, op. cit., 809.

86 See Moore, Digest, VI, 307. American Property Rights, etc., 10.

87 Borchard, “ How Far Must We Protect Our Citizens Abroad?” New Republic, April 13, 1927, 214.

88 Secretary Kellogg, N. Y. Times, Jan. 19,1927, p. 1; Minister Saenz, N. Y. Times, Jan.21, 1927, pp.1.

89 N. Y. Times, Jan. 22, 1927, pp.1. Cf. his more recent speech in New York on April 25. N. Y. Times, April 26, 1927, p. 10, c. 7.

90 N. Y. Times, Jan. 26, 1927, pp.1.

91 See the interesting introductory remarks by Dickinson in an article, “ New Avenues to Freedom,” 25 Mich. Law Rev. 622.

92 The Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903 proceeded without regard to the local legislation.Ralston, op. tit., No. 24. Both the Delagoa Bay Railway Case, supra, and the Portuguese Religious Property case (The Hague Court Reports, Pamphlet of Carnegie End. for Int.Peace, No. 37), were decided contra to municipal legislation. So also the Norwegian Shipping Claims case, supra. Numerous other instances are cited in Ralston, op. tit., Nos.141-161. Also Borchard, op. cit., 181-183.

93 Hyde, “ The Mexican Case-Shall We Arbitrate?” , N. Y. Times, Jan. 30,1927,VIII, 1.