The whole interpretation of the oil features of Article 27 seems at variance with the ideas of genuine radicals as completely as it is at variance with the ideas of dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who still dare talk of “vested rights.” The effect of the enforcement of the nationalization plan would be first to change royalty payments from the land owners to the government and second to move the dealings for oil leases from the open field and the negotiations of plain buying and selling to the conferences of government officials where honor is to-day a more commercial commodity than land, and where the proportions of lease money to graft would be as one to ten. It would indeed, bring on the era of concessions and favoritism with a vengeance, and the dismal pictures of the foreigners’ corruption and exploitation of Mexico would become a bitter reality. At present, the chief hope of avoidance of such a condition lies in Article 14 of the same Constitution of 1917, which declares that none of the provisions of that instrument shall be construed as being retroactive. The interpretation of non-retroactivity has been the subject of much discussion. At one time Carranza’s foreign minister told the oil companies that it should be understood to mean that the government would not collect for the oil already extracted. At other times it has been held that the expropriation of petroleum rights would not affect the properties where wells were opened prior to May 1st, 1917; then not to land acquired for drilling purposes before that date. It was this detail which was taken up by the Mexican Supreme Court in August, 1921. But after years of fighting single incidents, and working along the theory that American companies could demand only their own rights, the issue has actually broadened to the whole question of property rights of Mexicans as well as foreigners. There are millions of acres of potential petroleum land in Mexico, not one per cent of which is owned or leased by foreigners, and all this would be wiped out, along with foreign properties, if the oil were declared definitely confiscated to the nation, or even if merely the “oil” lands were exempted. Were non-retroactivity interpreted to nationalize only the oil and coal in federal lands to which no title had ever been given to private individuals, the vested rights of land owners would be protected whether petroleum had been discovered on the property or not. Such an idea of nationalization would approximate the control of oil in national lands in the United States under the new leasing laws. It is this interpretation which the oil companies and the Mexican land owners are seeking, and which has not been touched by the Mexican Supreme Court decisions noted above.