The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-10-22

guaDe may BE- ead TO have ssnstu.sd susA scsupsn
ey o. then - 70 give the severssss Of the eosineat
ngos Of dominion thcm under the law Of nations
But in his despatch to Mr. Osma. Of the 2lst OF
August, he rays, speaking of the Lebos islands,
II IL fhall turn that those islands are uainhabed
ana unnhaoi'able and therefore ncspaoe OF being 10
gsy possessed or held by nation thsy and tn
must be considered As the property OF
al
We are curious to learn where Mr.. Webster got
hs principle OF law, that IN uninhabitable island
cannot be legally possessed by any nation, ~hen
1t ia obvious from this very Instance Of Lobes that
the value of such Island may consist in its being
the undsturbed resort of seals seafew, and whea
ne himself had declared about two months before
that the practice OF resortiDg to such island to
procure guano might be said to constitute occxpan-
cy and dominion.
But in the letter addressed to Mr.. Jewett on the
2lst Of August, in which Mr.. Webster condemns
the expedition, he asserts that the government had
been nsled by certain statements contained in a
former letter of Mr. Jswetts Of the I'd of June The
American Secretary of State could hardly have
sorted to more fiplsy and unworthy excuse. It
was his business and his duty, not only not to have
been misled by the statements of an unscrupulous
adventurer, who proposed to attack the dominons
Of foreign power, but to have set him right where
he was in error, and to have vigorously withheld
ings. Nor can Mr.. Webster have been ignorant,
even at that time, Of tho real state Of the case
We have no doubt that tho Peruvian Legation
in Washington had not been idle, and We know
that in London the fullest information was
published as early as April and May. A pro.
test OF the Peruvian government appeared in the
London Gazette, and all the English journals, on
the 2lst Of April, and tho official papers, to which
Mr.. Webster makes an express allusion, were soon
Afterwards presented to tho British Parliament It
is therefore impossible for Mr.. Webster to plead
total ignorance Of the subject 1t the time he wrote
his note Of the 9th Of juno, in which he told Mr.
Jewett that sit may be considered the duty Of this
government to protect citizens of the United States
who may visit the Lobos lei ands for the purpose Of
obtaining gaano," and added that vessel Of war
would be sent there for that purpose. 1t was in
consequence of this formal intimation that, about
six weeks afterwards, or about the Goth OF July,
. score Of American vessels cleared for Lobos,
armed, and not uDprepared to meet and surmount
resistance. No attempt was made to interfere with
their equipment, or to convey TO their owners any
knowledge of the altered views Of the govern
ment. They Get sail, not only without any warning
or opposition on the part Of the authorities in the
United States; but with . direct official statement
that they were to be protected in their enterprise
though It now turns out that no instructions what
ever on tho subject had beon forwarded to the Ane-
ricsn commodore. Another month was allowed to
elapse after their and nearly three months
from the date of Mr. Webster's first communication,
the vessels being already far their way round Cape
Horn, whom atotay opposite line Of policy is adopt
cd, and Mr. Webster pstheticaly complains that the
government ofths United States had been mislsd by
an artful skipper on the I'd Of juno. In the mean
time the Psruvians have taken up vessels enlisted
seamen, and prepared for all contingencies. The
united States commodore having received no or
ders to support his oountrymsn in their pirstical
attempt, they will only arrive to ind they have
been despatched on . wild goose chase, and Mr..
Webster will inevitably be held responsible for the
loss Of capital invested in the expedition. On the
whole, then, we cannot recall another example in
which Q minister has been moro severely, yet more
justly, punished by loss of reputation, for an at
tempt to evade the strict provisions of public law
His note to Mr. Osma was regarded when it appeared
as miserably feeble attempt to defend an unten-
very day he wrote it he adopted the contrary view
and withdrew the protection Of the American naval
forces from the very persons who had engaged in
this Illicit trade on the faith Of his assurances
conduct was the result Of a morbid desire to win
popular suGrsges for the Presidency of the Union
but, if 30, never was scheme more fatal to the re-
putation and the interests Of its author.