G—2

of humanity, the Government is bound to maintain and the Courts to assert, the Queen's exclusive right to extinguish it. It follows from what has been said, that in solemnly guaranteeing the Native title, and in securing what is called the Queen's pre-emptive right, the Treaty of Waitangi, confirmed by the Charter of the Colony, does not assert either in doctrine or in practice anything new and unsettled. The first authoritative statement of Chief Justice Martin and Bishop Selwyn that, apart from such lands as may have been alienated, every foot of land in New Zealand belonged to some Maori tribe or hapu, and the decision of the Privy Council in Nireaha Tamaki v. Baker, approving the above statement of Mr. Justice Chapman shows that the fact that land is held by the Natives under their customs and usages, carries with it, as Judge Harvey puts it, grave implications for the reason that, unless it can be shown that such customary title has been lawfully extinguished a body of Natives later to be ascertained may be entitled to a freehold order which will give them rights against the Crown and a title against the world. Under the Wanganui Trust Act of 1891 the Upper Wanganui River district was constituted a River Board, the district comprising all the area within one mile of the bank of the river for the whole of its length from the southern boundary of the Raorikia Native Reserve to a point four miles from the source of the river and the trust was given power to do all things necessary for opening up or improving any navigation of that part of the river within its jurisdiction and for the removal of all obstructions impeding or preventing such navigation ; power also was given with the sanction of the Governor in Council for the erection of jetties and landing-places in the banks and maintaining ferries and to impose fees or tariffs in the use of shipping or landing either passengers or goods. Nothing, however, was to interfere with the full and free navigation of the river in canoes or boats. It has never been suggested that the area within a mile of each bank of the river if held by the Natives was expropriated, and I think if the bed of the river was in the Natives no such expropriation was intended. By an Amendment Act in 1893 the Trust received power to remove earth, stone, boulders, or sand from the river notwithstanding that the removal was from or used upon land owned by Natives under their customs and usages. The Natives were given the right to compensation in respect of material taken from or deposited on their lands. By an Amendment Act of 1920 the Trust was declared to be entitled to all gravel and shingle in that portion of the river under its control, and by an Amendment Act of 1922 the Trust was reconstituted with enlarged powers, but the actions subsequent to the Coalmines Act of 1903 are of no importance since by that Act the Supreme Court has determined that the title to the bed was vested in the Crown. But section 11 of the River Trust Act of 1891 provided that nothing in the Act was to affect any rights conferred upon the Natives by the Treaty of Waitangi or to confer upon the Trust any jurisdiction over private lands. While this statute may be suggestive of an assumption that the ownership of the river was in the Crown, yet it is not expropriation in itself. The Crown has not, I think, paid sufficient regard to the principles of tribal administration and organization which are matters of history and can be gleaned from the Native Land Court judgments already quoted. Having adverted to the contentions raised on behalf of the Crown and taking into consideration the fact that the question has been simmering for a great number of years without a clear rejection of the Maori claims, I have come to the conclusion that it was not until the Coal-mines Act of 1903 — a matter which was not raised in the Maori Land and Appellate Courts—that legislation vested the title of the bed of the river in the Crown. That being so, I answer the first question by saying, but for the Coal-mines Act, the bed of the river would be owned by the Wanganui Maoris, as it was at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. In my opinion, there are no circumstances sufficient to justify a finding that the Maoris abandoned their rights and no argument was advanced that compensation should not follow (as it almost invariably does on compulsory taking of European land) the taking

13