File No. 812.6363/189.
Vice Consul Bevan to
the Secretary of State.
No. 1210.]
American Consulate,
Tampico,
September 12, 1914.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt
of the Department’s instruction No. 634, of September 3rd, relative to
the interpretation of the decree affecting oil lands recently issued by
Governor Candido Aguilar of the State of Veracruz, Mexico.
There seems to be considerable doubt as to whether or not this decree is
be construed retroactively. Colonel Benignos, the Jefe de las Armas at
Panuco, says that leases and contracts made previous to the date of the
decree, will not be effected; Colonel Romero, the Chief of staff of
Governor Aguilar is quoted to have stated that all contracts and leases
made since February 1913 would have to be presented to the Governor for
approval. For this reason I have deemed it necessary to address the
enclosed letter to the Governor to settle for once and all the questions
in doubt. The Department will be advised as soon as these questions are
answered by the Governor.
I have [etc.]
[Inclosure—Translation.]
Vice Consul Bevan
to Governor Candido Aguilar.
American Consulate,
Tampico,
September 11, 1914.
Sir: I have the honor to advise you that I
have received instructions from the Department of State in
Washington to request some information relative to your recent
decree regarding contracts and leases of oil lands.
In order to protect the interests of American citizens, I would be
greatly obliged if your excellency would do me the favor of advising
me relative to the following details:
- First. Must contracts be presented to your excellency for
approval, or are there other authorities in the respective
cantons to whom we can present same?
- Second. Will the oil companies be able to execute minutas
with land owners, and, after obtaining the necessary
approval, elevate the minutas to public instruments when the
notary offices are opened, or is even taking minutas
prohibited until such authorization is obtained? I suppose
that there is no objection to taking minutas and obtaining
subsequently authorization for the leases, since as your
excellency well knows, a minuta not executed before a notary
is nothing more than the original draft of the agreement and
must be elevated to a public instrument before it will give
rise to its legal effects, and, therefore, it would appear
to be the most satisfactory means of presenting for approval
all the details of the proposed contract. But I desire to
know definitely about this.
- Third. Once the public instruments are executed before the
notaries, will it be necessary to present them for
approval?
- Fourth. The Jefe de las Armas at Panuco told a
representative of one of the oil companies that the decree
solely applies to contracts, etc., executed after the date
of the same and without doubt such is the meaning of the
decree on its face. Furthermore, in view of the provisions
of article 14 of the Federal Constitution and of article 5
of the civil code of the State of Vera Cruz, I believe that
Col. Benignos (Jefe de las Armas) at Panuco is right and
that your excellency did not intend to give the decree
retroactive effect. However, there are some persons who
contend that all contracts of every kind whatever
[Page 714]
executed since
February 1913 must be presented for approval: and for the
purpose of putting an end to all doubt, I request that you
kindly advise me about the matter.
I ask that you pardon me for bothering you at a time when undoubtedly
your excellency is very busy with very important matters of state
and I express to you in advance my sincere thanks for the hoped for
answer.
Assuring your excellency of my distinguished consideration,
I have [etc.]
