Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1852-08-28

authority protected by the constant presence Of
Peruvian man-of-war to warn off vessels"
Ii will be borne in mind that when case of tn Cam
peadora occurred the and perhaps the Of
guano manure was unknown in England Before
that was decided however, the British Government
may be said to have been rreyocaby committed to an
knowedgmen of the right of Peru to the Lobos Islands
by their acquiescence in the opinion expressed by Mr.
Wilson, their diplomatic agent and the answer to that
communication from the Foreign Oihce for in that an
swer under date Both August, 1884, Lord Palmerson
said 1t would therefore appear that the Peruvian Gov
eminent have right to prohibit foreign vessels from fish
ing upon the coasts Immediately adjoining to those islands,
well upon the coasts Of Peru ITSELF there being no
evidence in the papers which you have transmitted OF
right Of fishing acquired by long and uninterrupted
1t is clear therefore that the British Government yield
ed the point precisely because it had such ground to
stand in behalf Of its subjects the Government
of the United States does possess and may well stand
in behalf of its citizens And may be regarded
question still open in England down to last year; for,
the 10th of May of that year. Lord Stanley Under Sec
rotary of State for Foreign Affairs in to letter
from Mr. Wentworth Butler says: - am to state to you
in reply whether the Islands Of Lobos Auera and Lobos
de TERRA belong of right to Peru claimed by Peru
dependencies His ordshp does not find in the Peru
Wan Constitution published after Peru had separated
itself from Spain, any mention Of those islands being
dependencies of Peru but it appears to Lord Pamerston
that their proximity to Peru would give to that State
pTima fdcie claim to them"
Now it is certain that the fact does not under the rule
of public law bear out this last observation of Lord Pal
merston because the distance from the shore of all these
miles extend 1t may be here added that it is well
dersood that powerful class of British subjects distinct
from those OF merchants and farmers has vital interest
in maintaining the regulations for the export Of guano
from Peru upon their present footing 1t may not be
rey satisfactory therefore, to take the of the Cam
peadora that of the Hibenia which afterwards
red alone into consideration in endeavorng to account
for the policy which the British Government has thought
proper to adopt in regard to this However this
may be- it quite clear that the English and the
American quite different for the already
cd Ac has haan fhn anita
American Government in Peru demonstrated against the
issuing of the decree of 1888 And is consideration
of very great weight in this that the main object of
that decree it fully appears to drive off from the
coasts and islands of Peru including Of those of
Lobos, the fishing vessels of the United States Now if
such the sole principal object of the Decree and
the agent of the United States formally demonstrated
against that Decree how the subsequent conduct OF Pc
and her entire silence to be reeonced with the idea
that she really supposed herself possessed Of absolute
yereignty those islands? She certainly made at
tempt to enforce that decree against vessels citizens of
the United States but suffered things to 60 they
had gone on through long course OF years.
The undersigned has thus far spoken of the actual facts
and continued usage which he supposes to belong the
/ just consideration of this case
j Mr.. Osma in his recent communication refers TO the
authority of Acedo to prove that those islands within
the sovereignty oPeru and have always been considered
In the decision OF question. purely geographical,
latng any part of the American hemisphere and espe
cay to that formerly under the dominion of Spain the
undersigned acknowledges that Acedo is entitled al
most implicit confidence but in the passages to which
Mr.. Osma refers he speaking merely geographically
He was not discussing any question of right founded
either on discovery or usage any other political
sderaton; and if Mr. 0sma says, that great geogra
pher in speaking of the Lobos Islands, words plainly
by implication assigning Spain the sovereignty
those Islands, this may be ascrbed to his loyalty
Spanish subject and officer in the kings service
sentiment which would allow him to entertain doubt
of the right Of his sovereign to any regions which he
might claim, by whatever title Acedo therefore, de-
scribes the Lobos Islands belonging the coast and
10 particular province Of Peru The fact that they
Islands, however leaves the question open the dis
lance between them and the coast of Peru and he
to have taken for granted that because they happened
to be nearest to the province of Saa, they
sary included within the limits of that province; pro-
position which cannot be supported.
In this case therefore, the authority Of Acedo cannot
be regarded decisive In order that it should be so
considered, the undersigned be informed what
The OCCASIONAL visits Of inaSs S Ss nes
boring continent, which Mr. 0sma refers, cannot be
said have impaired the Sovereign of SPAIN the
Government of Peru good title to those islands
the habtua resort hther of the vessels of the United
States long and unnterruptedy continued for the pur
pose of capturing seals their shores and whales in the
adjacent ocean, would give to the United States The
of these Islands by the Peruvian Indians for the last
half century has doubt been vastly less than by the
citizens Of the United States and upon the ground of Mr.
Osma's argument, better title could be asserted by pos
session the part of the United States than could be
maintained by Peru.
The undersigned freely admits that acts Of the Peruvian
government founded on supposed rights, when not OBJ
jected TO, fit to be regarded having more less
weight the question of right far that right de-
ponds upon possession. If therefore, it be asked why
this Government did not also protest against the Peru
Wan DEGREES of the 2s of March and 10th Of May 1892
by the 18th article Of the former and the Sd of the latter
Of which the penalty of confscaton is denounced against
any national or foreign vessel which shall anchor at
approach the Islands places in which there may be
guano, without the usual license from the authorities
powered TO issue the il may be answered that the
very existence OF those DEGREES not known to this
Government until they appeared in the British Pariia-
menary documents the subject Of the Lobos Islands,
presented to the House Of Commons the l4th Of May
last There is nothing which the undersigned find in
the dispatches Of the Charge dAares Of the United
States at Lima to show that the DEGREES communi
known here at earlier date they would have received
the attention Of this Government
As TO the claim Of Peru to those Islands, founded
the law Of proximity the question will appear to be free
OF doubt The wellsettled rule Of modern public law
this point is that the right of jurisdiction Of any nation
whose territories may border the sea- extends to the
distance Of cannon shot three marine miles from the
shore, this being the supposed limit which defence
Of the coast from the land itself can be extended.
The whole discussion, therefore, must turn upon this
viz the Lobos Islands lying in the open ocean, far from
any continental possessions Of Peru not belong
that country by the law of proximity adjacent posi-
ton has the Government Of that country exercised such
unequvoca Of absolute sovereignty and ownership
them give to her right to their exclusive pos
session. against he United States and their citizens by
the law Of ndisputabe possession And the undersign-
ed repeats that this is not question between Peru and
other Governments, who may have less distinct
~ admitted her right but il is question between Peru
and the United States who have 50 long exercised that