Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1852-09-01

England. Before that case was decided, however,
the British Government may be said to have been
irrevocably committed to an acknowledgment OF
the right oil Peru to the Lobos Islands by their ac-
oescencein the opinion expressed by MIR. Wilson,
their diplomatic agent, and the answer to that COM
municaton from the Foreign Office; for in that an
swer, under date 30th August, 1884, Lord Palmer {
ston said sci would therefore appear that the (
Peruvian Government have a right to prohibit for
,eign vessels from fishing upon the coasts lnmedl-
ately adjoining to those islands, as well as upon
the of Peru ITSELF there being no evidence IN
the papers which you have transmitted OF any right
of fishing acquired by long and uninterrupted
usage ,,..,..,s-,.,sss. a.
.ment yielded the point precisely because II had no
such eroundto stand on in behalf oiilts own sub
iects as the Government of the United States does
possess, and may well stand on, i'll behalf of its
own citizens Audit maybe regardedas ques-
ton still open in England down to last year; for,
on the 10th Of May of that year, Lord Stanley, I'm
der Secretary Of State OF Foreign Affairs in answer
to letter from Mr.. Wentworth Butler, says: al
am to stateto you in reply whether the Islands oil
Lobos Afuera and Lobos de Tierra belong of right
to Peru, or claimed by Peru as dependencies
His lortlship does not find in the Peruvian Consti
tuition, published after Peru had separated itself
from Spain, any meni N of those islands as being
dependencies of Peru but it appears to Lord Pal
merston that their proximity to Peru would give TO
that State a p,ima tdcie CLAIM. to them."+
Now, it is certain that the fact does not under
the rule of public law, bear out this last observa-
ton of Lord Palmerson, because the distance from
the shore of all these islands is five or six times
greater than the three marine miles extend. IL
may be here added that it is well understood thata
powerful class of British subjects, distinct irom
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 entirely satisfactory therefore, to take
the case of the Campeadora or that OF the HlbeI-
MIA, which afterwards occurred, alone into cons,d-
Grafton, in endcavorlng to account for the pohcy
which the British Government has thought proper
10 adopt in regard to this subject. However this
may be, it is quite clear that the English case and
the American case are quite different Tor the rea-
sons already stated. As has been shown, the rep
resentatives of the American Government III Peru
demonstrated against the issuing Of the decree of
1888. And it is consideration of very great weight
i'll this case that the main object OF that decree, as
it fully appears, was to drive oil from the coasts
and islands of Peru, including of course those OF
LoboS, the fishing vessels of the United Statcs.-
Now: if such were the sole or principal object OF
the decree, and the agent Of the United States Tor
mall demonstrated against that decree, how Is the
subsequent conduct of Peru and her entire silence
to be recOncied with the idea that she really sup
posed herself possessed of absolute sovereignty over
those islands. She certainly made no attempt 10
enforce that decree agaist vessels or citizens or the
United States but suffered things to go on rs they
had gone on through u long course OF years.
The undersigned has thus far spoken OF the &C
tual facts and continued usage which he S'ppoSeS
TO belong to the just consideration OF tins case
Mr. OSma, i'll his recent communication, refers
the authority of AlceGo 10 prove thatthose Islands
are within the sovereignty of Peru and have always
been SO considered
In the decision Of q question purely geogtapn-
| cal relating to any part OF the American ichls-
pherc, and especially TO that formerly under tile
dominion of Spain, the undersigned acknov lodges
that Alccdo sentitlcd TO almost implicit confidence;
but in the passages 10 which Mr.. Oslna refers he
twas speaking merely geographically. dc was not
discussing any question of right founded either on
Il. tNFNlbt
Grafton and it, as Mr.. Osma says, that great geog-
rapher, i'll speaking ofhe Lobos Islands, uses words
plainly, or by mplicatio assigning to SPAN The
| sovereignty over those Islands, this may be as
cribed TO his loyalty as Spanish subject anu an OF
iictr in the kings service: sentiment which would
not allow him to entertain dOubtot the night OF
his sovereign to any regions which lie might claim,
by whatever title Alcedo, therefore, describes the
| Lobos Islands as belonging to the coast, and TO
particular province of 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 10 have taken II Tor granted,
becauSeth happened to be nearest to the province
| of Scna, they were ncceSsarIyinciudcd within the
| limits of that province proposition winch cannot
be supported.
In this case, therefore, the authority of Alcedo
cannot be regarded as decisive. In order that II
should be so considered the undersigned must be
Informed what acts of jurisdiction his Catholic
Majesty exercised over those islands. The occa-
sional visits of Indians from the ncighborng con-
| tnenL, TO which Mr.. OSma refers, cannot be said
to have impaired to the Sovereign of Spain, or the
Government of Peru even, rs good title to those
islands as the habtua resort thher OF the vessels
of the United States, so long and uninterruptedly
continued, for the purpose OF capturing seals on
| their shores, and whales in the adjacent ocean,
would give the United States. The use OF these
| Islands by the Peruvian Indians for the last half
century has no doubt been vastly less than by the
citizens of the United States; aud upon the ground
of Mr.. Osma's argument, better title could be
| asserted by possession on 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 objcctedto, are fit to beregarded as hav-
ing less weight on the question OF right, so
far as that right depends upou POSSESSION II,
therefore, it be asked why this Goyernmentdid not
also protest against the Peruvian DEGREES of the
Dist of March and 10th of May, 1912, by the 18th
article of the former and the third OF latter, OF
which the penalty of coniiScatiOn is denounced
against any national foreign vessel which shall
| anchor at or approach the Islands or places in
which there may be guano, without the usua. IL
ccnse from the authorities empowered to issue the
same, it may be answered that the very existence
of those DEGREES was not known to this Govern
nent until they appeared in the British Parllmen-
tary documents on the subject of the Lobos ISL
ands, presented to the House of Commons on the
l4th of May last There is nothing which the
undersigned find in the dispatches OF the
Charge d Afaircs of the United States at Lima to
show that the decress were communicated to or
knuwn to him. If these DEGREES had been known
here at an earlier date, they would have received
the attention of this Government.
As TO the claim of Peru to those Islands, lound-
ed on the law OF proximity, the question will APP
pear to be free of doubt. The we'll settled rule
of modern public law on this point lis, that the
right of jurisdiction Of any nation whose lerrlto-
ries may border on the sea- extends to the distance
of 4 cannon shot or three marine miles from the
shore, this being the supposed limit to which de-
fence of the coast from the land itself can be ex-
tended. ss
The whole discussion, therefore, must turn up
on this, viz, the LoboS Islands lying in the open
ocean, so far from any continental possessions of
Peru as not to belong to that country by the law
of proximity or adjacent position, has the Govern
IGent of that country exercised such unequivoca