THE WEBSTER CLAIMS

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 213, 17 December 1910, Page 2

THE WEBSTER CLAIMS

STATEMENT BY THE ATTORNEYGENERAL. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Friday. Speaking on the Webster claim today, the Attorney-General gave an interesting idea of the actual legal position so far as New Zealand was concerned. "The present position of the Webster claim is hardly satisfactory to us," he remarked. "It has been decided by Imperial authorities to refer the issue to an International Commission. The question is whether the claim is barred by the International Convention of 50 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 that s 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 it should rely, is as to whether Webster submitted to the New Zealand tribunals, and his claims were 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 Sovereignity was proclaimed in 1840, in these Islands, and as he made that purchase as an American citizen, he is entitled to call upon the nation to protect his rights as against the British Government. The American lawyers further contend (and' it is necessary they should do so) that prior to the declaration; of British Sovereignity in New Zealand, this country was under sufficient Maori Sovereignty to let in the rules of the international law upon which they rely. Regarding the protection of, acquired rights, the argument is that the Treaty of Waitangi proves that Britain recognised Maori Sovereignity, since no treaty comld possibly be,, made unless each of the contracting parties possessed that status qualifying them as contractors, hence it 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 tiow : be respected, either by way of returning the land or paying compensation. The areas claimed are enormous, aiid at the very least, if New Zealand, had to pay for them, would cost the country over half a million. The matter has more than once occupied the attention of the Federal Senate a.t 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, some measure of reprisal,"