Is there anything so unfair in this, that we should cry out "wicked monopoly." The Peruvian government, after the revolution, finds itself deeply in debt, and greatly in want of money, and in possession of one of the most valuable fertilizing substances in the world, which the people of other governments are in want of, or rather, may profit by the use of, which she offers to sell at what she deems a fair price; and for the purpose of enabling her to borrow money for immediate necessities, as well as to pay the war debt, she has given some of her citizens--rich merchants, who can advance money, certain privileges and advantages in the guano trade, upon condition that they will send a supply to all the countries where it can be sold, and in as great quantities as they will buy at fixed prices. This is the monopoly. A parallel case can be found nearer home. The government of the United States, also incurred a revolutionary war debt, and also came in possession of an article which the people of all other countries want, and unlike that possessed by Peru, an article which they must have. Upon this necessity of life, our government has fixed a price, which any one may pay or let it alone--buy or not, just as he pleases. The government will neither sell to citizens or strangers at half price, nor let them have the use of it without pay; in fact, will not let us carry away anything of value from this property, although it might not materially injure the sale of the principal and most valuable portion, which is immovable. Such is the "guano monopoly" of one government, and such is the "land monopoly" of the other. Which is most wicked?
Of the right of each government, no honest man will dispute. That Peru has as much right to the guano upon her desert islands, as the United States has to the live oak timber in the deserts of Florida; or as England has to the codfish in the waters of Newfoundland, seems to be as clear as any right ever exercised by any power on earth. Each protect their own by hired agents, so far as they are able, to prevent dishonest men from carrying away that which each considers valuable.
If English and United States citizens have a right to go and seize upon the guano and bring it off in defiance of Peru, because the guano islands are not inhabited, then have we a right to seize all the codfish in the waters of the sea, because nobody lives there--they cannot live there--they only live on the lands adjacent, and therefore have no right to anything except what they stand upon. Then by the same rule may the lands of the United States be seized upon, because they are unoccupied.
