Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

to this request the President sent to the Senate a 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 resolution 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. JAMES BUCHANAN.

WASHINGTON, January 19, 1859.

Names of such complainants, citi zens 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 gov. ernments.

William Webster..

[blocks in formation]

$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.

[blocks in formation]

The result of such action and the amount of satisfaction obtained, if any.

The Government of Great Britain, in reply to the representations of the envoy of the United States, stated that the colonial government of New Zealand 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 recognized and adhered to by the British Gov. ernment 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 sterling 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 them from the natives prior to the procla mation of British sovereignty.

Names of such complainants, citi zens of United States, as have preferred complaints or claims against foreign governments to the Executive Departments of the Government for aggresssions or spoliations, or other demands against such governments.

Claim of William Webster-Continued.

Amount
claimed.

A brief abstract of the nature of
the claim and the action of the
Executive in relation thereto.

The result of such action and the amount of satisfaction obtained, if any.

William Webster, by his counsel, Messrs. Anderson. Reverd y Johnson, and J. W. Denver.

January, 1840. The interven-
tion 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-
ernment, noted in the state-
ment here above next preced-
ing. But the claimant now
maintains that the order of the
metropolitan Government of
1841 was only partially obeyed
by the colonial authority, and
that the relief apparently con-
ceded by such partial obedi-
ence, has been made a nullity
by the judgment of the colo-
nial court; that no order of the
British ministry can be of
avail to contravene the funda-
mental law of Great Britain;
that an alien can not take in
fee and convey real estate in
land by title good in law. Held
under consideration.

Concerning this document your committee have heretofore commented. (Report 1736, Forty-ninth Congress, second session.)

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 58. 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 false assertion that he bad 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 have to remark further concerning this report, as to its erroneous statement that a claim had been presented by Mr. Webster against Great Britain, that it appears from the report itself that it refers to the representations made to Great Britain by Mr. Everett in 1843, herein before considered. By a clerical misprision, $78,145 was stated in this erroneous "report" as the amount claimed. No such claim was ever made. This sum was the amount of money stated by Mr. Webster to have been paid by him for and expended upon the lands in question. The compiler of this report assumed without any warrant that this sum was stated and advanced as a claim by this Government against Great Britain. This error, as we have shown, was corrected in 1876 by Secretary Fish. It was again corrected and the matter put in its true light by Mr. Blaine in a letter to Mr. Webster, dated June 21, 1881, in which the Secretary states:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, June 21, 1881.

SIR: Your letter of the 16th of April last, in relation to your claim against the British Government growing out of the seizure and appropriation of your lands and other property in New Zealand by the British authorities in that colony during the years 1840 to 1844, has been received.

You desire information in relation to certain statements made in reference to your claim in a communication from the President to the Senate in January, 1859. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to answer your inquiries categorically at this distance of time from the date of that communication. 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 general subject of the claims of American citizens to lands in New Zealand became a question of diplomatic negotiation between this Government and that of Great Britain about the time of the acquisition of that territory by the British Government, and it is believed that in making up the report of this Department to the President, upon which the message in question was based, either through inadvertance or misconception of your letter to Mr. Consul Williams-a copy of which that gentleman had forwarded to the Government-the officer charged with its preparation supposed that a claim on your behalf was then before the Department.

No

The investigations since made show that supposition to have been erroneous. reason is perceived why that statement should in any way work a prejudice to your claim. It does not so operate in the estimation of this Government, and it is not conceived that it will have the effect of lessening the equities of the demand against that of Great Britain.

I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM WEBSTER, Esq.,

Washington, D. C.

JAMES G. BLAINE.

The foregoing observations are made because they bear upon the question whether Mr. Webster's claims have been barred, or have been

at all affected, by the two claims convention which were respectively proclaimed between the United States and Great Britain, February 8, 1853, and May 5, 1871.

It was agreed by the convention of 1853, article I, that—

[ocr errors]

All claims on the part of citizens of the United States upon the Government of Her Brittanic Majesty, and all claims on the part of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty upon the Government of the United States which may have been presented to either Government for its interposition with the other since the signature of the treaty of peace on the 24th of December, 1814, and which remain unsettled, as well as any other such claims as may be presented within the time specified in article III, hereinafter, shall be referred to two commissioners, etc.

*

*
*

It was provided in article III that "every claim shall be presented to the commissioners within six months from the day of their first meeting," etc. By article v the contracting parties—

Engage to consider the result of the proceedings of this commission as a full, perfeet, and final settlement of every claim upon either Government arising out of any transaction of a date prior to the exchange of the ratifications of the present convention; and further engage that every such claim, whether or not the same may have been presented to the notice of, made, preferred, or laid before, the said commission, shall, from and after the conclusion of the proceedings of the said commission, be considered and treated as finally settled, barred, and thenceforth inadmissible.

When the commission met, and when it adjourned, these claims had not reached a stage that brought them within the operation of the treaty. The claim for taking spars had never been presented by Mr. Webster to his own Government. It had been referred by the colonial government to the home office in London, and was under advisement there. As has been remarked, "it would be inequitable to hold that Great Britain could, by negotiating in London for its settlement, keep it out of the commission, and then set up the bar of the claims convention as an answer to the negotiations."

Be this as it may, there can be no doubt that the controversy as to the lands was never within the purview or operation of the treaty of 1853. Mr. Webster's grievance for taking the lands did not arise until they were finally taken from him, and until it was definitely settled that they would not be returned to him. It has been seen that as late as 1858 the question was under advisement by the colonial authorities, and the validity of one of the grants was recognized. The final determination not to return the property, and its final appropriation and sale by the colonial authorities, were not until after that year, and after the adjournment of the commission. Until the final denial of his claims, and of all remedy for his wrongs, he had no claim for money compensation, and had made none.

The convention of May, 1871, does not affect Mr. Webster's claims. It relates only to claims against Great Britain by citizen of the United States arising out of acts committed between April 13, 1861, and April 9, 1865.

In 1873 Mr. Webster proceeded to London and, through his counsel, Kimber & Ellis, made a statement of his case to the Earl of Kimberly, the principal secretary of state for the colonies, with a view to reparation by the British Government. To this it was replied that the information of the Government differed from the statements contained in the letter of Mr. Webster's counsel; promising, however, to forward a copy of such letter to the governor of the colony, with the request that the subject may be reported upon. To this Messrs. Kimber & Ellis responded, requesting to be advised in what respect the information above referred to differed from the statement made in their letter, to

the end that they might make explanations. To this it was answered that as the governor of New Zealand had been requested to report upon the matter, it was one for the consideration of the governor, and his lordship does not think there is any advantage in his entering into a discussion in regard to it.

On November 17, 1874, the colonial office addressed a letter to Mr. L. C. Duncan, who appeared in some way to have been brought into the business on behalf of Mr. Webster, stating that the report of the governor of New Zealand has been received, and that the matter having been most carefully inquired into, the only conclusion is that not only had Mr. Webster no claim to compensation, but that he had been treated throughout with exceptional liberality. A copy of this letter to Mr. Duncan was sent to Kimber & Co., Mr. Webster's representatives, by order of the Earl of Carnarvon, with the information that it must be distinctly understood that in furnishing the same his lordship adheres to the decision of his predecessor not to enter into any discussion of Mr. Webster's claim, but that it should be referred to the colonial governor, with whom the decision rests.

To this Kimber & Co. replied, requesting to be informed of the time when and the manner in which Mr. Webster was treated with "exceptional liberality," and the facts and reasons which caused the governor to arrive at the conclusion announced, and as to the time when Mr. Webster's rights were extinguished.

To this the Earl of Carnarvon directed a reply to be made, informing Mr. Webster's counsel that they had already been informed that Lord Carnarvon can not enter into any discussion of the merits of their client's case, and that he adheres to this decision.

The Senate, by resolution adopted February 28, 1887, requested the President to obtain from the British Government copies or full statements of all proceedings of the government of New Zealand or of any land commission or board or other lawful authority that has decided upon or has pending before it the validity of titles claimed by American citizens in the islands of New Zealand under grants made by the chiefs or other ruling powers prior to the exercise of sovereignty over them by the Government of Great Britain.

In compliance with this request the British foreign office, on December 7, 1887, transmitted to the American minister at London the information set out in Executive Document D, Fiftieth Congress, first session, hereto appended. With these papers was transmitted a memorandum on Mr. Webster's claim by Sir Robert Stout, in which the subject is reviewed and a reply undertaken to the report of your committee, No. 1736, Forty-ninth Congress, second session, hereto appended.

The Department of State, after careful examination of the question as thus presented, was unable to assent to the conclusions of Sir Robert Stout, on the ground that "the arguments and allegations, some of them injurious to the claimant, by which those conclusions are reached, are not justified by the facts as disclosed in the documents furnished by the governor."

Many reasons for this determination by the Department are set forth in Executive Document No. 23, Fifty-second Congress, first session, hereto appended.

With the conclusions of the Department your committee, after careful reëxamination of the subject, entirely agree.

The Department of State informed Mr. Lincoln, the American minister at London, in a communication dated September 9, 1890, of these

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »