The Sun.
London, England, 1852-09-13 00:00:00

N°.18,714.]

25,000
75 000

[PRICE SD.

reprehensible enough ; what , motives of thif
conduct may have been, we will not irquire—for A r,,--I,Jrd ,
is neither the point at issue, nor business of ours. lIT reeio t`, •
Mr. Webster's first statement respectieg Lobos, it 196
.-'4,,,„. ~.4
will be remembered that he represented it as proballit
.t ~a-ao,
hoalsee-Lio"
_
that the islands in question were discovered in 182 S
by Benjamin Morrel, jun., a citizen of the Republic.
Finding, as soon as this most unguarded and unfortu-
nate assumption was made public, that it was not only
untenable, but even ludicrous and discreditable, Mr.
Webster hastened to frame a new statement, in which
he modified his original position, retaining, however,
all that was possible of what he had first said. He
made no confession of error. On the contrary, his
second statement was so worded as almost to induce
the reader to imagine that this must have been
what was advanced in the outset, and that the
public had misunderstood Mr. Webster's proposi-
tion. Benjamin Morrel was again mentioned; the
year 1823 was again the date to which reference
was made; the word " discovery" was retained;
and the difference was mezely this, that the
discovery was now alleged to have reference, not to
the existence of the islands themselves, but to the
guano with which they were covered, and which con-
stitutes their only soil. We may remark in passing,
that if the reader has any doubt as to what Mr.
Webster really said at first, it will be removed by re-
ferring to the original letter, which
denied, and in which Benjamin Morrers supposed
trover is distinctly represented as a discovery of these
has not been
islands themselves. But give Mr. Webster the full
benefit of his amended plea, and it still amounts to
nothing. Grant that Benjamin Morrel was the first
to find that there was guano on the Lobos Islands--
though we believe that there will be about as little
difficulty in showing that he was not the discoverer
of what the islands contained as in showing that be
had discovered was not the discoverer of the islands-grant, how-
ever, that the assumption is a fact—grant that Benicia
have bestowed on the land belong to the owners of
notmin A
thei orrel
propertyfirst noticeda
ttehvee
r tguanoreas
treasure
Lobos;
nature
maydoes
the land ? And, therefore, is not the question still
exact', what it was before—Who is the rightful pro-
prietorgress or grain,
hitherto unknown and therefore neglected, in an
island belongin-
g- to France or England, would that
vtehree
d Lobosa e
elrstlaainnd s orse that Morrel
discovery transfer to the United States the right of
ownership in
Such an island, or even in the particular
production thus h
are the rightful sovereigns or
proprietors of the
islands of Lobos ? That once
settled, you know, of course, to whom belongs its
valuable? SuP P
natural treasures. In this instance the treasures in
. dispute are far more Completely identified with the
land than would be trees or plants, for guano is the
r.wnhugoht to light ? The point to as-
certainexisting soil of Lobos.
' The islands have neither wood nor water ; the sub-
; stratum of them is nothing but slate ; or a species of
' flaky rock, as nearly as possible on
cveerrtyainsoiisl
4 level with the
Pacific; and they are lifted out of the waves solely
by the piles of guano, layer on layer, deposited by
countless generations of gull, and " booby, and pen-
guin, and buzzard. Guano not only makes the
sitismelpf,lya;nd the only
jbaemd
beds
no
fMLo
or rbeols's. voyage,
The
p anderu whichv,iearn:value of
ytheaerissloalndd, sa,nbdutthearlesoaremmakaepsstahne icslaanrdss,wwhich, but
for that substance, would scarcely be more than a
collection of shoal-rocks to be carefully avoided by
pt bueblmisahreicin ear: l e Asas t
Gothe
yearskn knowledge et
the
ef thesedate
eislands,clear
it l
ei
as
r,
representation
rwe
see showednta
ti
of
fn
the
e recent
B. eor
a occasion,ceou s
banks
aonmk some 3aonod
islands well, and knew that their" . • had inhe-
rited them from Spain. Thatthey
ouinery h
that
substance was of which these isle: were composed :that
d is
also certain, if they knew what guano iscoma-nodsewi,h
then,ht contain
k which
ht
1 ewt
these
that they are familiar, for they have it els;ewhere in
profusion, and have used it habitually from time im-
memorial. Besides, a e must not forget one
°lain
distinction, that the knowledge of the value of app
session is not ownership, and, therefore, still lesss..
would it confer the right of ownership to be the first
to discover the value of mother's treasure. If
you discover that a ring which your neighbour
wears is diamond, while he imagines it to be paste,
you are not justified in tearing it off his finger,: and
claiming it as thenceforth your own; nor would you
be so justified in appropriating it, were it lying nag_
lected on his table, and had he even disdained to use
as soon as,
it, through ignorance of its real worth. If,
that neighbour became aware of its value, he declarpel
that he would keep it, he would do only what her,ttad,'
a right to do. Now, it requires no great penetration
to perceive that what Mr. Webster last advances is at
best and at most, merely, that a citizen of the United
States was the first to discover that certain Peruvian
islands are more valuable than the Peruvian's who
owned them were aware. The Peruvians may reply
—" You have, even if we grant all your assumptions,
merely shown us that we were richer than we ima-
gined. But poor or rich, those islands are not your
discovery, but that of your fathers ; not your pro-
' perty, but our own, ever since we were a nation.
Does everything belong to you which you discover to
be valuable ?"