Polynesian., 1852-11-13

tisiactory, therefore, to take the case of III
Campeadora, or that Of the Hibernia. whic
I afterwards occurred, alone into cons,dera
5 ton, IN endeavoring to account for the nolic
which the British Government has though
proper to adopt In regard 10 this subject
: However this may be, it is quite clear tha
the English case and the American case arr
quite different, for the reasons already stated
As has been shown, the representative of tn,
! American Government in Peru demonstrate,
against the issuing Of the decree of 1888.
! And it is 4 consideration of very nrea
weight in this case that the main object o
that decree, as it fully appears, was 10 drive
oil from the coasts and the islands of Peru
including of course those Of Lobos, the fish.
ing vessels of the United States Now, il
such was the sole or principal object Of tha,
decree, and the agent of the United States
formally demonstrated against that decree,
how is the subsequent conduct of Peru and
her entire silence to be reconcled with the
idea that she really supposed herself pos
sessed of absolute sovereignty over those
Islands She certainly made no attempt TO
enforce that decree against vessels or citizens
of the United States, but suffered things to
go on as they had gone on through a long
course of years.
The undersigned has thus far spoken of
the actual facts and continued usage, which
he supposes to belong to the Just considera-
ton of this case
Mr.. Osma, In his recent commune alton,
refers to the authority of Alcedo to prove
that those Islands are within the sovereignty
of Peru, and have always been so considered.
In the decision of a question purely geo.
graphical, relating to any part OF the Ameri-
can hemisphere, and especially to that form
erly under the dominion of Spain, the under
signed acknowledges that Alcedo is entitled
to almost implicit confidence but in the
passages to which Mr.. Oslna refers he was
speaking merely geographically. He was
not discussing any question Of right founded
either on discovery or usage, or any other
political consideration and if, as Mr. Osma
says, that great geographer, in speaking of
the Lobos Islands, uses rds plainly, or by
implication, assigning to Spain the sovereign
ty over those Islands, this may be ascribed
to his loyalty as Spanish subject and an
officer in the Kings service sentiment
which would not allow him to entertain a
doubt Of the right Of his sovereign to any
regions which he might claim, by whatever
title Alcedo, therefore, describes the Lo-
bos Islands as belonging to the coast, and to
a particular province in Peru. The fact
that they are islands, however, leaves the
question open as TO the distance between
them and the coast of Peru, and he seems to
have taken il for granted that, because they
happened to be nearest to the province of
Sana, they were necessarily included within
the limits of that province a proposition
which cannot be supported.
In this case, therefore, the authority of
Alcedo cannot be regarded as decisive. In
order that it should be so considered, the
must be informed what acts ofI
jurisdiction his Catholic Majesty exercised
over those islands The occasional visits Of
Indians from the neighboring continent, to
which Mr.. Osma refers, cannot be said to |
have impaired TO the Sovereign of Spain, or
The Government of Peru even, as good u |
title to the islands as the habitual resort
lhither of the vessels of the United States, so
long and uninterruptedly continued, foI the
purpose of capturing seals on their shores,
and whales in the adjacent ocean, would
give to the United States. The use Of these
islands by the Peruvian Indians for the last
half century, has no doubt been vastly less
han by the citizens of the UAited States ;
and, upon the ground of Mr.. Osma's argu-
ment. better title could be asserted by pos
session on the part of the United States than
could be maintained by Peru.
The undersigned freely admits that acts Of
he Peruvian Government, founded on sup
posed rights, when not objected TO. are fit to
De regarded as having more or less weight
,n the question of right so far as that right
depends upon possession. II, therefore, it
De asked why this Government did not also
protest against the Peruvian DEGREES Of the
list of March and 10Th of May, 1872, by the
18th article Of the former and the Sd of the
after of which the penalty of contiscation Is
denounced against any national or foreign
yessel which shall anchor at or approach the
sland or places in which there may be gu
mo, without the usual license from the
authorities empowered to issue the same, ii
nay be answered that the very existence Of
hose DEGREES was not known to this Govern
nent until they appeared in the British Par
iamentary documents on the subject oil the
.obos Islands, presented to the House OF
Commons on the I4th of May last. There
S nothing which the undersigned can find in
he dispatches of the Charge d'Afaires of
he United States at Lima to show that the
lecrecs were communicated to or known to
lin. If these DEGREES had been known
lere at an earlier date. they would have re-
.eived the attention Of this Government.
As to the claim of Peru to these islands,
ounded on the law of proximity, the qucs
ion vii! appear 10 be free Of doubt. The
rule Of modern public law on
his point is, that the right of jurisdiction OF
my nation whose territories may border on
he sea, extends to the distance of a cannon
hot or three marine miles from the shore,
his being the supposed limit to which de-
ense of the coast from the land itself can be
xtended.
The whole discussion, therefore, must
urn upon this, viz the Lobos Islands lying
- G. croro ouv cOufIn9u.f