Polynesian., 1852-11-13


Foreign Relations of Peru, he requested
= reconsideration of the decree, or that it migf
!. be so far modified as to permit to the citizen
OF the United States the pursuit Of an occu
4 patton which they had been allowed quietl
to follow for number of years, and addn
D that the decree could not be regarded as un
friendly to the Government of the Unite
States. So far as is known to the under
signed, no answer or reply was ever made t
this remonstrance, and il is certain that th
citizens the United States continued to pur
f. sue their usual avocations without interrup
ton, Notwithstanding this decree Ifsuch al
interruption had been made by the Peruvian
authorities it would at once have brought tn,
question of the sovereignty of Peru over th,
Lobos Islands to the attention of this Govern
ment, as happened few years before in the
case of the right of the Government of the
Argentine Confederation to claim sovereignty
over the Falkland Islands. 1t is true that the
decree of 1888 makes no particular mention
of the Lobos Islands, but it is directed gene
rally against fishing on the coasts and islands
OF Peru. Nevertheless, this cannot be re-
garded as affecting the general rights of citi-
zens Of the United States, founded ON long
and undisputed usage.
Here, then, is formal remonstrance on
the part of the United States against the as
serted sovereignty of Peru over the Lobos
Islands, to which no answer, so far as it ap-
pears, was given, nor any intimation made
that notwithstanding this remonstrance the
decree would be enforced. 1t is quite evil
dent that, although the decree is general in
its terms, it was intended to be leveled es-
pecially against citizens of the United States,
as the subjects of other countries did not par
take to any considerable extent in the fish
cries which were prohibited. Can MIR. Os-
mas averment, therefore, be maintained, in
which he asserts the universal and absolute
sovereignty of Peru never to have been de-
MED or questioned by any Government p
And if Peru has suffered these barren rocks
be visited and used by citizens of the Uni
ed States for long course of time, and for
tall the purposes for which they were known
to be valuable, is the case altered when they
are found to be fit for new use Is not the
natural inference either that Peru never
claimed any exclusive right over the islands,
or that, if such claim had been made by any
formal or official act of the Government. such
claim had been abandoned, at least so far as
citizens of the United States are concerned
MIR. Osma refers to decision Of the Eng
lish Government, and observes that as both
the mercantile and agricultural classes in the
British Empire have strong interest adverse
to the claim of Peru, if the British govern
ment has decided in favor of that claim, that
decision must be ascribed to considerations
sufficient to outweigh regard for the inter
ests of British farmers and shp-owners.-I
But the two cases may be justly considered
as essentially different When the decree of
1888 appeared, Mr.. Wilson, the British Con-
sui General at Lima, in communication to
his Government, said: For many years no
British vessel has been engaged in this fish
cry, but great abuses have been committed
by American vessels" and the year after
wards, writing upon the subject of the seizure
of the British schooner Campeadora, for kill
ing seals at the Lobos Islands, he admitted
the right of Peru to those islands. AT the
same time he adds: Lord James Town
shend, the Commander of His Majestv's ma
val forces in the Pacific takes different view
of the question; and he himself told me that
he considered that His Majesty's subjects
had a positive right of fishery on all these is
lands, unless they should be actually occu-
pied by some Peruvian authority, or protect
ed by the constant presence of some Peruvi-
an man-of-war to warn off vessels"
1t will be borne in mind that when the case
of the Campeadora occurred, the use and
perhaps even the value of guano as a manure
was unknown in England Before that case
was decided, however, the British Govern |
ment may be said to have been irrevocably |
committed to an acknowledgment Of the right I
of Peru to the Lobos Islands by their acqui-
.l>o cd h,yM H.
son, their diplomatic agent, and the answer
TO that communication from the Foreign Oi-
flee: for in that answer, under date Both Au-
gust, 1884 Lord Palmerston said: I" 1t would
therefore appear that the Peruvian Govern
ment have right TO prohibit foreign vessels
from fishing upon the coasts Immediately ad-
Joining to those islands, as well as upon the
coasts of Peru itself, there being no evidence
in the papers which you have transmitted Of
any right of fishing acquired by long and un-
usage.
1t is clear, therefore, that the British Go
vernment yielded the point precisely because
il had no such ground to stand on in behalf OF
its own subjects as the Government of the
United States does possess, and may well
stand on in behalf of its own citizens. And
il may be regarded as question still open IN
England down TO last year; for, on the 10th
Of May of last year, Lord Stanley, Under
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in an
swer to letter from MIR. Wentwo orth Butler,
says: 81 am TO state to you, IN reply whe-
her the islands of Labos Afuera and Lobos
lie TERRA belong of right to Peru, or are
claimed by Peru as dependencies. His Lord
ship does not find in the Peruvian Constitu-
ion, published after Peru had separated it.
self from Spain, any mention of those Islands
as being dependencies of Peru; but it appears
o Lord Palmerston that their proximity to
Peru would give to that State pr'n'a Jac'e
claim TO them"
Now, it is certain that the fact does not,