File No. 812.512/1924

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

[Telegram]

948. Your 925, April 1, 3 p.m.1 From your despatch 852 of March 20 it appears that Rouaix asserts that he initiated before Constitutional Assembly draft of Article 27 of Constitution and assumes to give an authoritative interpretation of the idea dominium directum contained in that article, as applying to petroleum and other subsoil deposits. Rouaix states these words signify that ownership in such deposits, both “absolute and original”, as well as “private”, is vested in the nation, and adds that by promulgation of Constitution all laws in conflict therewith were immediately repealed, including, of course, those recognizing the right of the owner of the surface to subsurface deposits. In view of Rouaix’s connection with the Government and the authoritative nature of this interpretation, it seems clearly to establish correctness of opinion expressed by Department in its 895, March 19, noon, that promulgation of petroleum decree involves arbitrary attempt to separate surface and subsoil rights, thus divesting owners of their property without due process of law, and in disregard of Constitutional provision that “private property shall not be expropriated except by reasons of public utility and by means of indemnification.”

You will therefore supplement your representations made pursuant to Department’s 8952 by a note in the sense of the foregoing, to which you will add that if, as appears, Señor Rouaix has spoken for the Mexican Government, the Government of the United States, on behalf of its citizens who have invested vast sums of money in Mexican petroleum lands, relying, as they had a right to do, upon the laws of Mexico giving to owners of the surface ownership of the subsurface [Page 716] deposits, enters a solemn and emphatic protest against the petroleum decree as an act of confiscation and despoliation, and reserves all rights in the premises.

Lansing
  1. Not printed.
  2. Ante, p. 705.