THE HALF MILLION CLAIM

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2536, 24 June 1909, Page 5

THE HALF MILLION CLAIM

WEBSTER’S TRANSACTIONS,

. (Per Press Association.; WELLINGTON, Juno 23. Tlie claim for half a million sterling made by the United States Government against the New Zealand Government on behalf of a citizen named Webster (or his executors) _ is based on a very old story. The records of the Parliament of New Zealand show that Webster and his claims have been much in evidence since 1887. In that year a report on the bona fides of the claims was made by Mr. (now Sir Robert Stout. In the later eighties and early nineties the matter was again before Parliament at various times during six years, a second report being submitted by Sir Robert Snout in 1893. The records cover hundreds of pages. - It is impossible to go into the whole of Webster’s alleged transactions with tho Maoris. A few extracts from Sir Robert Stout’s opinions and the Parliamontry papers will serve to show the public that the greatest consideration was at all times extended to tho man who succeeded in getting the Senate of the United States to further his claims. Originally the claim was for land or an indemnity. Now it appears to have materialised into a definite demand for £500,000. Oii the Ist May 1874. the Governor of New Zealand, in a despatch to the 1 Secretary of State for the Colonies, forwarded an entire history of the transactions between the Government and Mr. Webster, as well as tho opinions of Mr. G. M. (now Sir Maurice) O’Rourke (Crown Lands Commissioner) and Dr. Pollen (Colonial Secretary at the tim§).

In the course of that despatch, after an exhaustive summary of the merits of the claims made, it was stated: “The most important point appears to be that liis (Webster’s) present claim should have been considered strictly as that of an American citizen. Tlie records show that he elected to have his claims referred to the Commission appointed for the purpose of adjudicating upon the claims to land not granted by the Crown, after he had been informed by tlie Governor that he could only consent to their being laid before a commission in the usual way if they were lodged as from a British subject.. Mr. Webster, indeed, made no such explicit declaration, but replied, I am told, after some hesitation, ‘I wish my claims to be laid before the Commissioner. lam willing to take my chance with others.’ He appeared and prosecuted his claims before the Commissioners. There is no record of liis having made any protest against their awards, and he must be held to have accepted them, as he. received the Crown grants made in pursuance thereof and sold or mortgaged all the lands so granted. His claims were, in fact, treated with exceptional indulgence, and .admitted to a larger extent than those of any other individual.” The voluminous records in the appendices appear to bear out this positive statement. After the Senate of the United States had gone into Webster’s case it considered that his claim was “founded on Justice,” and resolved "mat tlie president be requested to take such measures as, in his opinion, may bo proper to secure a just settlement and final adjustment of his claim against Great Britain, growing out of the _ioss of lands and other property in Now Zealand, of which he has been deprived of by the Act or consent of the British Government, and to which he had acquired a title under purchases and deeds of conveyance from the Native chiefs prior to February, 1840, anti prior to any right of Great Britain to the said islands.” However, nobody appears to have considered the possibility of war being resorted to as a means of settling tho matter of the 500,000 acres originally claimed by Webster ;5000 acres were awarded to him personally, and altogether 41,924 acres to AVebster and various parties acting conjointly with him at the time that purchases were made. Sir Robert Stout’s report of ISB7 concluded: “From a perusal of the documents I cannot but feel assured that Mr. AVebster has been treated with very liberal justice, especially seeing that the awards were made in his favor, or in favor of his acknowledged assigns, of every single acre which the native owners admitted' he had justly bought from them. More than this bo could not have received, whether claimed as a British subject or as an American citizen.”

Again, in a report dated "18th April, 1593, Sir Robert Stout reiterated tho opinions previously given him in another report to Parliament. “The fact is,” he says, “that there was neither seizure nor sale by the Governments of New Zealand or Great Britain of a single acre ever claimed by Mr. Webster. If the title of purchases of land from the Natives prior to the- Treaty of Waitangi was not proven to the. satisfaction of the various Commissioners who investigated the claims, or if the Crown grants wc re not issued, the lands claimed and not awarded remained Native ands: that is, the Government recognised that .those lands, belonged to the aboriginal inhabitants. If,- then, Mr. Mobster has any claim, it must be against the Native owners who obtained all the lands which, though claimed, - ere not awarded to him.” ' “It will be noticed,” Sir Robert Stout remarked in this report, “that the United States Senate report concludes with a suggestion that if. the Government of Great Britain renses to consider Mr. Webster’s claims for reparation, special reprisals should be resorted to. I am not aware whether it is usual in a document asking for considerations of the claims of a citi/ui to threaten the Government : o winch such a document is addressed ?n such a manner. In private society >n a c:v:i iseJ State it is not. usual to throate* your antagonist with revolvers and bowio knives, or even to state. te< re will be an appeal to a judicial tribunal, if your arguments are not listevid to. and I would respectfully submit that this threat of reprisals shows weakness on the part of the committee’/cl the United States Senate which enquired into the matter.” . • „ After that nothing further was noara of Webster’s claim until the other day, when it was announced that the Soli-citor-General was going Homo to attend a mysterious claim made against this country, ’