the responsibilities of dealing justly with those of other nationalities, who have acquired rights within its borders.
This is not wholly or chiefly a question of constitutions; it is more a question of the attitude of the government in the interpretation of doubtful clauses of the constitutions. The fundamental law of 1857 had in it objectionable clauses but the government of General Diaz, as time went on, showed itself indisposed to interpret them in a way that would discriminate against foreigners. The Constitution of 1917 has additional indefinite provisions and the governments in power since its adoption have acted in a way to arouse apprehension on the part of foreigners owning property in the country.
The preamble of the new Constitution, like that of the old, contains a clause, which, broadly interpreted, would protect all vested rights. It declares: "No law shall be given retroactive effect to the prejudice of any person whatsoever.[1] The other clauses that are of special interest to foreign holders of property, though some of them do carry discriminations, are not ones to which international objection may be raised if this general guarantee is in law and practice one which limits all other clauses. If it does not do so, if the rule that a more specific provision of law controls a more general one applies, then certain of the clauses of the new Constitution give good reason for alarm.
- ↑ Article 14. The citations of the Mexican Constitutions in this chapter are based on H. N. Branch, The Mexican Constitution of 1917 Compared with the Constitution of 1857, Philadelphia, 1917.
