The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1852-09-24
THE DAILY DISPATCH.
THE AFRICA'S NEWS

xnE DAILY DISPATCH. |
THE AFRICA's NEWS.
The news BY the Africa appears 10 be rene.
rally Of little importance. the most iu,e,es,ior
portion Of it being that which announce. ,h.,
Louis Napoleon had threa.ened to .upn,e.. . |
Parisian Journal, for preaching crusade, on |
the part Of the Catholic world, against the |
Protestant countries. We subjoin an ex,r.c,
from an article Of the London Times furiouslv
assailing Mr. Webster for his opinions and
conduct with regard to the Fisheries.
On the 5th of June last, Mr.. Webster. in his
capacity as Secretary of State, was officially
aPprised that the British government contem-
plated certain immediate measures for the bet
ter protection of their own fishermen against
unlawful encToachments. On the following
DAY ne issued proclamation of warning to
ms countrymen, the effect Of which was to ere.
ats considerable hostility of sentiment against
Gieat Britain. ltis further alleged, though 10
tnls TACT we cannot positively testify, that on
the morning after the proclamation had been
issued, he was corrected By the British, repre-
sentative at Washington, and informed that he
had mlsconstrued the communication of the
9th. be this as it may, fortnight later Mr..
Webster addressed public assembly at Mash.
field, IN speech, which reviewed the fishery
question At some length, SO that we have two
documents before US, both hincontestably pro>
ceeding from the Secretary himself, on which
we can base our remarks, and we assert, with>
out hesitation. that they are lacking in evil
dence Of sound political principle. There
were two points at issue-that of the inshore
fisheries and that of the bay fishing. On
each the Americans had been trespassers /; on
the latter habitually, on the former materially.
Now, IN the proclamation, Mr.. Webster kept
the lnshore fishing wholly out of sight, though
ne knew that the British government wan fully
justified 10 protecting It, though he knew that
the Americans had encroached upon il, and
though his own deputy afterwards declared in
tile Senate that it was this encroachment on
which the Americans were most resolutely
bent. This point. on which he knew his coun-
trymen to be without defence. he concealed all
together, and described the measures Of the
British government as founded solely upon an
arbitrary Interpretation of the term 'bay,' and
intended to circumscribe, in this respect, GER
tain privileges which, by usage at least, the
Americans might conceive themselves TO have
acquired. Whatever may be the reasonable
inference in the case, we are of course unquali-
fed to assert conclusvely that MIR. Webster's 8
misconstruction of the British note was wilful,
but this atieast we can say--that he did not
represent with ordinary fairness even that opn-
ion which he thought himself at liberty to form.
Even if he really presumed the bay question,
and that only, to have been indicated in Mr..
Champions notification, he was unwarranted
in giving ii so partial a description, or in fol-
lowing it up with such interested appeals
The Secretary himself perfectly understood
for, by the mouth of Mr.. Seward, he afterwards
informed the Senate-that the American, as
opposed TO the British Interpretation of the
term bay was absolutely untenable, even in
the interests of Americans themselves. As
perfectly, too, was he aware that the British
policy on this point had been uniformly one OF
concession and forbearance; yet to neither ol
these facts did his addresses contain the
slightest allusion. Inste ad oflaying before his
countrymen fairly, and without prejudice, the
disputable character OF their own proceedings
or referring to the systematic liberality by
which the British view of the case had been
hitherto distinguished, he directed his appeals
exclusively to the acquisi,iveness of his con-
stituents, enlarging upon the value Of the pro.
perry rather than upon the rights of the title,
and leaving it TO be understood that American
fishermen were threatened with the abrupt de-
privation of precious privileges by the harsh
construction of treaty whereas, he well
knew that the parties concerned were, in at
least one half of their proceedings, wholly
without warrant, and in the other dependent
on forbearance, which had never yet been
found wanting.
The Times next attacks Mr.. Webster for bis
opinion upon the subject of the guano trade
Here is what it says: t
In the case of the Lobos Islands we can
speak still more strongly, both because we are
exempt from any national participation in the
dispute, and because the facts are more con.
clusively at command. Sir. Webster was ask
ed by a countryman desirous Of taking guano
from these islands whether they were or were
not Peruvian property7 To this inquiry the
Secretary replied that his department was
not aware of any circumstance conierrihg
territorial title ON Peru, and that, moreover,
there was reason to conceive that the rights at
least of " discovery" deyolved upon the Unit"
ed States through the achievements OF BeDJa-
min Morei, jr., in 1923. Yet when DIR. Web
ster made this reply TO the expectant trader, his
" Department" must surely either have been
aware of certain circumstances maternity IN
terfering with these conclusions, or been Ia
mentally deficient in political informaiion.-
The territories in question bad been described
as pertaining to Peru by every geographer and
draughtsnan who had treated OF The subject;
they had been frequenied by American citizens
before Benjamin Morel was born; and twenty
years ago, that is TO say In 1883, an act "i = g
ruyian sovereignty was exercised in respect TO
them against the Americans themselves, which
act was met by remonstrance not denying the
right Of jurisdiction. We are left, therefore,
inevitably to presume either that the American
Department of State was ignorant not only OF
common lessons of geog raphy, but OF It's own
diplomatic negotiations, or that DIR. Webster
adjusted his official opinion rather TO the ints-
rests of tho moment than the merits OF lne
case. Our correspondent imagines that mo
ihing" has appeared from Dir. Webster on lh.s
subiect since bis private no,s of the early part
Of June bur unfortunately, the Secretary, as
our readers know, VAS driven 10 an eisDo.a's
s1nosu,e af his own weakness on the 2lst Of
August.
II winds up by insinuaiing that Dir. Webster
was Influenced in his opinions BY the hope OF
nomination for the presidency. Our own coun-
trymen, Of course will not sanction these
views of the Times, and we have only pub
t:.haJ ,h.a IN let our readera see what -