The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1853-08-31
CLAIM OF THE EARL OF STIRLING
TO THE FISHERIES

1t is a somewhat remarkable fact, that, whilst
The government of Great Britain and the u. S.
are understood TO be negotiating as to the FISH,
cries, claim is set up by Lord Stirling, which,
if it be we'll founded, shows that neither gov
ernment has any right in the subject-mattcr of
their negotiations. There are two circumstances
connected with Lord Strings claim to the
fisheries which are calculated, at first bush, 10
weaken its claim 10 a favorable consideration
its immense magnitude and its long Standing
The claim is founded upon charters granted rs
early as 1921 to Sir VIM. Alexander, Earl of
Stirling and Dovan, and embraces all the publ c
or unoccupied lands in Nova Scotia, New Bruns-
wick, and Prince Edwards Island, together
with all mnes-in the whole province of Cam
da, amounting to at least ten millions Of acres
of improbable lands-the public lands IN the
northern parts of Wisconsin and Michigan, in
GLIDING the copper mines of Lake Superior
the public lands owned, or claimed to be owned,
bv the States of Maine and Massachusetts,
within the territory of Maine-a strip of
country three hundred miles broad, extend
ing from the head-waters of Lake Superior
to Californa and the territory Of California
ard right to the fisheries on all the C ass
Of Canadr, NuNt, Scotia, New Brunswick,
and Prince Edwards Island We repeat
that the very magnitude of this claim as well
as 10 its validity Bat these crcums ances con
stilue no real obstacles TO the ascertainnent Of
the legal rights, of The claimant-they may, and
probably will, impose upon him the necessity
of making out and terrifying his claim with
more clearness and conclusiveness Than would
be requisite i'll bringing forward an ordinary
claim
We are unable to see how the assertion Of
this claim by Lord Stirling can interfere with
or embarrass the pending negotiations as t, the
fisheries Great Britain, as we understand,
does not recognize the validity of the claim
while the United States is only negotiating for
ruch rights as Great Britain possesses, or is ca
pable of giving. IF Lord Strings claim is val
id, is superior to that of Great Britain and az
he is no party to the negotiation, it cannot b.
atfectediby the result. 1t may hereafter bes
come an important question for investigation by
our government but in regard to this matte
we speak without any knowledge of the view.
| Of our government, and advert to it only be
cause, as an item of intelligence, so large :
claim, brought forward in so imposing man
ner, is well calculated to arrest public attention
| The claim of Lord Stirling has undergon.
| the scrutiny OF eminent lawyers, and is now
presented under the authority and sanction O
| legal names which are well calculated to impress
the public mind We have had an opporiunit
of examining publication on the subject b.
John l.. Hays, Esq, which is prepered with de-
cided ability, and in which Lord Sterling
claim il; indicated by most imposing array
facts and authorities. We find also that In
Hon. r J. Walker, whose legal abilities give t
his opinions the ghest claim to consideration
has expressed his undoubted conviction a
to {" the heirship, indemnity, and legal rights q
Lord Stirling" Appended TO Hayes publca
ton is short but comprehensive opinion Of
II. Lawrence, Esq, of this city, gentleman
eminence in his profession, in which he discus.
es briefly and clearly what strikes us as I'll
main question in the case, if the heirship is cor
coded First, is the present claimant
the title Of the estate the real heir, lin,
ally descended from the original grantee ?
On this question the facts addueed by M
Hayes seem to Mr. l.. to be conclusive
, amongst these is the fact that the claimant h;
! obtained two verdicts ofjuries upon the que
ton of heirshp to the original grantee. The.
accordance were given in accordance with Il
Scotch law, aid our understanding is that sue
Q judgement is conclusive. The second questio
is, whether Lord Stirling lost his rights by n
gligence or want of possession? We rega
: this as the most difficult question:; but Mr.. Law
: renee arrives at The conclusion that Lord SIT
llng's title remains good, and is not affected
negligence, want OF possession, or lapse
It time.
n These remarks will enable our readers to u
derstand the character of Lord Strings clai,
. and the imposing force of authority upon viii,
: it is brought forward. We repeat that whilst '
1t thus concede that the claim may become impo
tant, we do not see why it should embarrass Il
pending negotations.-Wash.U I'm.