THE WEBSTER CLAIM.

Clutha Leader, Volume XXXVII, Issue 50, 20 December 1910, Page 6

THE WEBSTER CLAIM.

HALF A MILLION INVOLVED. THE POSITION EXPLAINED. AUCKLAND, Dec. 15. Speaking on the subject of the Webster claim to-day the Attorney-General (Hon. Dr Findlay) gave an interesting idea of the actual legal position so far as New Zealand is concerned. "The present position of the Webster claim is hardly satisfactory to .us," he remarked. "It has been decided l\y the Imperial authorities to refer the "issue to an international commission. The question is whether the claim is barred by the international convention of 60 years ago. This convention declared that the outstanding claims by the United States against the Imperial Government and vice versa and also the claims by subjects of either against the Government of the other were to be barred by the terms of the convention. The American lawyers now contend that the convention does not apply to the Webster claims on grounds that have already been argued in Washington. In my opinion it would be foolish to say that the question is free from very considerable doubt. The issue, however, on which the New' Zealand Government has been advised that it should rely, is as to whether Webster submitted to New Zealand tribunals and had his claims adjudicated upon in this country at the time they ' arose. It seems to me that there is | conclusive evidence to show that he did. Our desire is to have this issue added to those already agreed upon for reference to the commission. "It will be. understood that this contest involves very serious international conditions. American lawyers contend that as Webster purchased from the native owners before British sovereignty was proclaimed in 1840 in these islands, and as he made that purchase as an American citizen, he is entitled t:> call upon his nation to protect his rights as against the British Government. The American lawyers further contend (and it is. necessary that they should do so) that prior to the declaration of British sovereignty in New Zealand this country was under sufficient independent Maori sovereignty to let in the rules of international law upon which they rely regarding the the protection of acquired rights. The argument is used that the Treaty of Waitangi proves that Britain recognised Maori sovereignty, since no treaty could possibly be made unless eaeli of the contracting parties possessed the status qualifying them as contractors. Hence is is contended by Webster's representatives that the titles he acquired from Maori chiefs prior to 1840 as an American subject are valid as against the New Zealand Government and must now be respected either by way or returning the land or payiag compensation. The 'ifeas claimed are enormous, and at th? very least, if New Zealand had to pay for them, it would cost the country over half a million. The matter has jnore than once occupied the attention ot the Federal Senate at Washington, and in one of the reports made it was actually suggested that recognition of the Webster claims be enforced by the American Government, either by diplomatic negotiations or, failing that, by some measures of reprisal."