valuable part. Such an act, of course, would be contrary to the letter and spirit of Article 14 on retroactive legislation already quoted.
Because of anxiety as to the meaning of this provision Ambassador Fletcher, when presenting his credentials to the Mexican government, made inquiry on the point. He was assured that no confiscation was contemplated. The Mexican Review, a semi-official paper published in Washington in the interest of the Carranza government, declared that the constitutional provision in regard to retroactive legislation protected all private holdings of lands.
About a year later—the first appearing, February 19, 1919—a series of decrees were issued, which seemed again to show a conflict between profession and intent. Certain new taxes were placed on the petroleum industry but in the form of rentals and royalties. Titles to lands were to be registered and if not registered under the new law, the lands were to be declared open to entry. Ownership could be perfected only under the conditions outlined in the Constitution.
But, if ownership was already complete, why should any payments be made to the government as rental or royalty? Such an act would admit that the real ownership was in some one else—in this case the Mexican government. If registry under the new law was more than a formality for the completion of the public records, it also might cloud the title to lands in full possession. The new registry, it was maintained, would in itself pass the actual title to the government or at least put the companies within the terms of the clause of the Con-
