zen, and by seizing them and selling them contrary to its own treaty and laws. This was also done contrary to its solemn pledge, given to the United States by Lord Aberdeen, that "where aliens had acquired lands from the chiefs prior to the proclamation of the Queen's sovereignty there, and that fact was undisputed, the claims should be acknowledged," unless they were not obtained in good faith. This situation is one that seems to demand the intervention of the Government of the United States. That Webster's claims have been refused consideration upon the state of facts that attended their origin, and should have controlled their decision, is entirely apparent according to the record evidence in this case. Webster's claims seem to have received no other consideration than that indicated in a letter to him from the governor of New Zealand, which is as follows: Hamilton to Webster. GOVERNMENT HOUSE, March 10, 1845. SIR: I am desired by the governor to acquaint you that his excellency has examined and taken advic respecting your land claims, marked 305 H and 305 I, and is sorry to find himself precluded from authorizing any further grant made to you at present on account of the largeness of the grants already made in your name. The governor directs me to say that the land which you now hold in undisputed possession will probably be granted to you eventually. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, J. W. HAMILTON, It is very clear that, while this enunciation of the governor of New Zealand was intended as an indefinite postponement of all further consideration of Webster's claims, it held out to him the hope that some future indulgence might be accorded to him, as an act of grace, in respect of "the lands which you now hold in undisputed possession." Neither the New Zealand natives, nor any other person, claimed to hold possession of these lands when the treaty of February 6, 1840, was made, or before that time, under any claim or color of title, or of occupancy, that was adverse to the possession of William Webster. The governor of New Zealand, in the communication above copied, stated his decision that "claims marked 305 H' and '305 I'" were disallowed, for the present, and, also, all other grants made to Mr. Webster, "on account of the largeness of the grants already made in your (Webster's) name." This refusal to confirm " grants made to " Webster was not attempted to be justified on the ground that land claims marked, 305 H' and 305 I'" were not in the "undisputed possession" of Webster, but solely on the ground of "the largeness of the grants already made in your (Webster's) name.' Then follows the promise, that has not been kept in any sense, that "the land which you now hold in undisputed possession will probably be granted to you eventually." This was the manner in which the governor of New Zealand complied with the instructions of the British Government, as they are stated in the letter above quoted of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett. The disposal thus made of the rights of an American citizen was a mockery of justice and a contemptuous disobedience of the instructions of the Government of Great Britain. That Government, however, at a later date, made itself responsible for this summary and unjust disposition of the rights of Mr. Webster, as will appear from a copy of correspondence annexed to this report, marked "Appendix No. 2." On the 17th November. 1874, Earl Carnarvon, Her Majesty's principal secretary of state for the colonies, cut down all hope of Mr. Webster's success in getting his rights growing out of the assurance made to him by the governor of New Zealand on the 18th March, 1845, that the lands of which he held undisputed possession would be granted to him eventually. Earl Carnarvon, replying to a letter of Mr. C. L. Duncan, through his secretary, said: "Lord Carnarvon desires me to inform you that, this matter having been most carefully inquired into, the only conclusion which his lordship can come to is that not only has Mr. Webster no claim to compensation, but that he has been treated throughout with exceptional liberality." As Mr. Webster never got an acre of land in New Zealand from all the extensive purchases he made from the chiefs, and as the British Government seized and sold all the lands conveyed to him by the chiefs for his own use and benefit, in which British subjects were not interested, it becomes impossible to find any ground for the statement of Lord Carnarvon that he "not only had no claim to compensation, but that he had been treated with exceptional liberality." There is no other possible ground for this statement except the statement made by the governor of New Zealand in his letter to Mr. Webster, dated March 10, 1845, as to "the largeness of the grants already made in your (Webster's) name." The facts which explain this statement are as follows: While Mr. Webster was engaged in purchasing lands from the chiefs, some of his friends in Australia, who were British subjects, employed him to purchase several tracts of land, in all about 15,000 acres, for them. They furnished the means, and he took the titles in his own name, being on terms of peculiar friendship with the chiefs, and afterwards admitted the rights of those British subjects in the presence of the commission, who proceeded to confirm the titles to them. These facts were all made known to the commission by Webster when he appeared before them and proved his deeds by the chiefs and others. All the titles made by the chiefs to Webster, and by Webster admitted to be for the benefit of British subjects, were confirmed by the commission. The conveyances made by the chiefs to Webster, in the same deeds and for his own use, have been refused confirmation" on account of the largeness of the grants already made in your name. Thus, his faithful dealing with British subjects was made the pretext for the final denial of his rights; and titles that came through him from the chiefs for the benefit of British subjects were confirmed, while titles that came to him from the same chiefs, included in the same bodies of land and under the same conveyances, have been ignored; and his part of said lands has been seized and sold by the British Government. This is the present situation of the claim of William Webster to compensation from the British Government for his lands in New Zealand, taken and sold by its authority. Aside from the influence of the principles of international law, which would secure rights of property to private persons in any country, the sovereignty of which passed to a new rule by cession and treaty by purchase and not by conquest the terms of the treaty with the tribal chiefs compel the conclusion that no title to the soil of New Zeland passed to Great Britain where the same sovereign power had formerly granted the same land to a citizen of the United States. But the principles recognized, recently, in the Berlin Conference, as to the Free State of the Congo, and in other instances, are only consistent with the right of the chiefs of any tribe, however savage, to cede lands to private persons and societies. The sovereignty of a tribe being admitted, all questions as to their right to convey their lands disappears. This is conspicuously true as to the New Zealand chiefs, whose rights are expressly admitted in the treaty of cession and merge into the British colonial system, and upon which treaty every land title in the colony is distinctly based whether accruing to the Crown or to British subjects. No complaint has been made by the British Government that Mr. Webster has omitted anything required to properly secure his titles to these lands, or that he has ever done anything to forfeit them. He insists that his rights have been overslaughed because of his repeated refusals to renounce his allegiance to the United States and to become a British subject. However true this may be, it is true that lands conveyed to him by the New Zealand chiefs have been confirmed by the authorities to British subjects, for whom he purchased them, and thus it is a reasonable conclusion that his foreign citizenship has caused discrimination against his rights that is neither just nor defensible. Mr. Webster deserved, at the hands of Great Britain and all other civilized people, better treatment. When he was quite a young man he went to New Zealand with a capital of $6,000, invested in goods suited to trade with that people. He purchased the right to set up a trading station at Coromandel from the native chiefs. He was the first white man who settled there, or at any point nearer to that place than the Bay of Islands, 150 miles from Coromandel. Pursuing his policy of friendly intercourse with the natives, and learning to speak their language fluently, he soon largely increased his capital by exchanging pork, which he bought from the natives, and ship-timber and other native productions for such articles as they needed, which he imported to that country. He bought a cape of land from the native chiefs on or near the present site of Auckland, and built houses and established a trading station there. He was the first white man who settled there, or within a great distance from that point. As his business increased, he purchased other locations and established other trading stations. He established a ship-yard at which he built small coasting vessels, in which he entered the shallow bays along the coasts, and ascended the rivers to open trade with the natives. In this way he was largely instrumental in bringing the natives into friendly relations with each other, and in diverting their attention from savage warfare to peaceful pursuits. He was the real pioneer of civilization in that section of the country, and was followed by colonies of English people, to whom he had opened the way to the interior of the islands. At Great Barren Island there was then a whaling station much resorted to by fishermen, and Mr. Webster sought to convey it to the United States as a valuable acquisition. His letter containing this offer is set forth in Appendix No. 1. His lands and other property in New Zealand were worth a sum which he estimates at a million dollars at the date of the treaty with Great Britain. When, later, he had been deprived of his property and returned to the United States to assert his rights, he was reduced to poverty. In a letter, dated November 4, 1840, by Mr. Webster to I. H. Williams, United States consul at Sydney, New South Wales, and set forth in Appendix 1, he called attention to the proceedings of the British Government in reference to the lands purchased by American citizens, and asked the consul "to make it known to the American Government as early as possible." In the conclusion of his letter he says: "They have not taken any of my lands as yet, but I expect they will take all from me, and every other American, unless our Government will take it in hand to stop it." This was the only suggestion Mr. Webster made that he desired any intervention by the United States until September, 1858. His letter had no relation to any indemnity for loss and damage for lands that had been, or were expected to be, sequestered by the British Government. It only had reference to getting titles to his lands, and those of other American citizens, which he feared that the British authorities might refuse to recognize and confirm. On the 30th January, 1841, Mr. Webster wrote to the colonial secretary of New Zealand and sent him copies of his land titles to seven tracts, and seven statements of his purchases, which he asked should be laid "before the commissioners for examination only." He offered in this letter to come before the commissioners and prove all his purchases. He concludes this letter, which is copied in Appendix 1, as follows: 66 "All of it was bought before Her Majesty's Government was formed here, and I further consider that all I have has been dearly earned; and I trust that before I am dispossessed of any of it it will be proved who has the best right to it." The letter of Mr. Webster to Mr. Williams was sent by the latter to our Department of State. On June 14, 1858, the Senate, by resolution, called on the President for information as to the claim of William Webster, relating to his lands in New Zealand. Replying to that resolution, the President sent to the Senate the statement, called " a report" from the Secretary of State, in the following form: Message of the President of the United States, communicating, in answer to a resolu tion of the Senate requesting a list of claims of citizens of the United States against foreign Governments, a report of the Secretary of State. To the Senate of the United States: In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 14th June last, requesting a list of claims of citizens of the United States on foreign Governments, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with the documents which accompanied it." WASHINGTON, January 19, 1859. JAMES BUCHANAN. William Webster... $78, 145 For loss and damage (January, 1840) for so much paid, laid out, and expended, in cash and merchandise, between the years 1835 and 1840, in purchases of lands and franchises from certain chiefs of New Zealand and in the improvement thereof, prior to January, 1840, when the Sovereignty of Great Britain over the islands was declared; and so the claimant alleges, his rights and privileges were sequestered by the British authorities. This statement of claim was received October, 1841, and, by instructions, was pressed upon the British Government by the envoy of the United States, 1842 and 1843. It was not presented by the claimant to the London commission acting under the convention of February 8, 1853. William Webster, 6, 573, 750 For loss and damage and indemnity by his counsel, Messrs. Anderson. Reverdy Johnson, and J. W. Denver. for lands purchased from chiefs of New Zealand from 1835 to 1840, and franchises pertaining thereto, and improvements alleged to have been made thereon, which claimant alleges were sequestered and taken from him by the British authorities after the assertion of the sovereignty of Great Britain over New Zealand in January, 1840. The intervention of the Executive of the United States was applied for September, 1858. The archives of the Government record this claim to have been presented in different guise in 1841, and to have then received the prompt action of the United States, and to have been met by the measures of relief on the part of the British Gov The Government of Great Britain, in reply to the representations of the envoy of the United States, stated that the colonial government of New Zea land was ordered in March, 1841, to recog nize and confirm all bona fide purchases made from the New Zealanders by aliens prior to January, 1840, and, in case of want of proof of the good faith of the transactions, such aliens should be dealt with in like manner as British subjects making like claim; which orders and proceedings were recog nized and adhered to by the British Government in 1844 in the case of a Belgian claimant. The before-mentioned order of 1841 confirmed to aliens bona fide purchases made by them prior to 1840, although made at prices less than five shillings ster ling per acre, whilst British subjects were required to show payments at that rate in order to be entitled to confirmation of grants of land obtained by from the natives prior to the proclamation of British sovereignty. Names of such complainants, citizens of United States, as have preferred complaints or claims against foreign Governments to the executive departments of the Government for aggressions or spoliations, or other demands against such governments. Claim of William Webster-Continued. Amount William Webster- 86, 573, 750 A brief abstract of the nature of the ernment, noted in the statement The result of such action and the amount of satisfaction obtained, if any. In a letter of Mr. Blaine, Secretary of State, to Mr. Webster, dated "Department of State, Washington, June 21, 1881," he says: "I may state generally, however, that upon a very thorough examination of the case recently made by an officer of the Department, charged with such duties, it is found that no claim was directly presented by you, or on your behalf, for indemnity until September, 1858." The entire letter is copied in Appendix 3 to this report. These two statements are directly in opposition to each other. Without attempting to account for the apparent discrepancy it is clear that the statement last made is true, because, in the nature of things, the statement made in 1859 could not be true. Mr. Everett did not present or urge any claim of Mr. Webster for indemnity for lands taken from him, nor did Lord Aberdeen make allusion to any claim for compensation. The question whether the lands would be taken from Webster was still open in December, 1843; and under the orders as announced to Mr. Everett by Lord Aberdeen, in February, 1843, the obstruction to a confirmation of Webster's title, of which Mr. Everett complained, had been removed, as to the price of five shillings per acre, as far back as March, 1841. It is not true, as matter of fact, that Webster, in 1841, had presented any claim for indemnity against the British Government, nor is it true that the "archives of this (the United States Government) record this claim to have been presented in different guise in 1841, and to have then received the prompt action of the United States." This statement is not supported, but is refuted, by the "archives of the Government." The injustice done Mr. Webster by this untrue representation of his conduct, whoever may have inflicted it, should be now removed. He should have a fair opportunity to have his claim against Great Britain considered on its merits, without the embarrassment of a lalse assertion that he had abandoned his right to these lands, and had claimed compensation for them in money, before the British authorities had proceeded to finally deny or to ignore his rights. By that report the Senate was misled as to the conduct and the rights of Mr. Webster, and it is due to him that this should appear on its records, and that this embarrassment should be removed. Your committee are of opinion that Mr. Webster's right to claim indemnity for the lands, purchased in good faith from the native chiefs, is clearly estab lished as being just and complete, and their final sequestration and sale by the British Government, which occurred in 1845 or later, gives him the right to ask |