Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

SUBMISSION OF MR. WEBSTER'S CLAIMS.

On the 20th of July, 1841, being thus expressly required to do so, Mr. Webster sent seven copies of titles to land and seven statements of purchases to the colonial secretary of New Zealand, with a request that they be laid before the commissioners for examination only. At the same time he said:

"I have sent all my claims to land in this country before the United States Government by the advice of the American consul of Sydney, and I trust his excellency Governor Hobson will not suffer any of my lands be interfered with until the question is settled. I have been a resident of New Zealand for seven years, and have expended a large sum of money and undergone a great deal of trouble and hardships.

"I am willing to come forward and prove all my purchases, but I trust that I shall be allowed time to do it, for I am very busy now with ships, and am under heavy penalties for the fulfillment of my agreements, and I find it will take a long time to get all the natives and witnesses to my purchases of lands together, and the expense will be very great. I find myself already at a great loss, and it appears to me that I am to be put to much more, and I do not know who to look to for it. I trust, when my claims for purchases to land (in this country) are examined, that they will prove to be all well understood by them that hear them; and it was all bought before that any 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.

"Hoping that I have not made any unjust remarks, I have, etc.,
"WM. WEBSTER."

In reply to this letter Mr. Webster received a communication from the colonial secretary dated August 7, 1841, which is as follows:

COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
Auckland, August 7, 1841.

SIR: I have had the honor to receive and lay before his excellency the gov ernor your letter of the 20th ultimo, transmitting copies of titles of claims to land in New Zealand, and am instructed to acquaint you that you must distinctly state whether you claim the land as a British or American subject. If the former, your case will take the course the law prescribes; if the latter, your claims must depend upon the decision which may be arrived at by the joint consent of both Governments. The governor further directs me to inform you that in seeking assistance from a foreign government you must relinquish all the rights of a British subject, such as the ownership of a British vessel, which you are now understood to possess; but, if the claims be lodged as a British subject, his excellency will consent to their being laid before the commissioners in the usual

way.

I have, etc.,

Mr. WILLIAM WEBSTER,

Coromandel Harbor.

WILLOUGHBY SHORTLAND.

On the 3d of October, 1841, Mr. Webster sent the following answer:

COROMANDEL HARBOR, October 3, 1841. SIR: In reply to yours concerning my claims to land, I wish my claims to be laid before the commissioners, and am willing to take my chances with all others. But I trust that they may be left until the last, for it will put me to a serious inconvenience to attend to them now.

I have, etc.,

WM. WEBSTER.

It is stated in the memorandum of Sir Robert Stout that upon the cases submitted by Mr. Webster there were made the following entries:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE GOVERNOR.

The information furnished regarding these claims is sufficiently full to enable them to be referred for investigation. It appears from Mr. Webster's letter of July that these are only a part of his claims he mentions twenty-seven as the total number-but states that the documents referring to the other claims are mislaid.

OCTOBER 30.

WILLOUGHBY SHORTLAND.

MINUTE BY GOVERNOR.

Let Mr. Webster's claims be submitted in the usual way.

NOVEMBER 2, 1841.

W. HOBSON.

On the strength of these communications, the memorandum of Sir Robert Stout contains the following assertions:

"From the foregoing correspondence no other inference can be drawn but that Mr. Webster intended to have his claims heard as those of a British subject; and,

"Firstly. That the governor so interpretated his intention is apparent from the minute of the 2d of November, 1841, where, in directing Mr. Webster's claims to be submitted in the usual way he adopts the course and uses the identical language which the colonial secretary, in his letter of the 7th of August, informs Mr. Webster would be adopted if he advanced his claims as a British subject.

[ocr errors]

Secondly. Mr. Webster, in his reply of the 3d of October, where he expresses his wish that his claims should be laid before the commissioners, requests that very course to be adopted which the colonial secretary informed him would be adopted if he advanced his claims as a British subject.

"Thirdly. Mr. Webster appeared before the commissioner's court and gave his evidence on oath in respect of each claim, without protest, after his claims had been notified in the usual way, and never asserted any exceptional claim as an American citizen; and, also, he accepted the awards in each claim and the crown grants issued in virtue of the said awards.

"Fourthly. Mr. Webster did not relinquish the rights of a British subject, such as the ownership of a British vessel which he possessed, and which, in the aforesaid letter of the colonial secretary, he was informed he would be required to do if he advanced his claims as a foreigner.

"It is to be especially noted here that, although Mr. Webster's letter of the 20th of July, 1841, to the colonial secretary, wherein he advances his claims as an American citizen, has been submitted to the Senate of the United States, and is referred to in the report of the committee of the Senate (post, page 41), yet no evidence appears of Mr. Webster having submitted to the Senate either the colonial secretary's letter of the 7th of August or his own reply thereto of the 3d of October, 1841. From this surprising omission I can not but conclude that it was an act of willful disingenuousness on Mr. Webster's part, done for the purpose of suppressing all evidence which might be adduced to prove that he advanced his claims before the land claims commissioners as a British subject, and not as an American citizen."

[ocr errors]

It is not thought to be necessary now to consider so much of the above-quoted passage as makes against Mr. Webster a charge of "willful disingenuousness and suppression of evidence. On his part, Mr. Webster vehemently denies that some of the documents which accompany Sir Robert Stout's memorandum, apparently as contemporaneous records of the investigation of the land claims, possess that charater. Mr. Webster asserts that he left Coromandel Harbor on June 23, 1843, when the examination of his cases was concluded, and never afterwards saw any commission then or afterwards appointed, and that all proceedings subsequent to that date in respect to his titles were ex parte and without notice to him and without his knowledge. In respect to some of the proceedings that appear to have taken place in and after June, 1843, before Commissioner Godfrey, Mr. Webster points, in confirmation of his statement, to the following passage in Sir Robert Stout's memorandum:

"The first commission concluded its labors by reporting on all the claims referred to it. Major Richmond, on the 8th of March, 1844, was appointed superintendent of the southern division of New Zealand and Col. Godfrey returned to England."

Just after this the following statement is also noted:

"In the year 1844 an ordinance in amendment of the above-recited ordinance was passed giving to a single person the powers granted to two commissioners under the ordinance of 1841. This was called 'the land claims ordinance, 1844, session III, No. 3;' and Mr. Robert Appleyard Fitz Gerald being appointed, on the 25th of March, 1844, sole commissioner thereunder, he formed what is herein called the second commission."

In the memorandum of Sir Robert Stout there are found seventeen or eighteen pieces of evidence which purport to have been "taken in court" before Commissioner Godfrey from May to August, 1844. It is found that the amended and last report of Commissioners Richmond and Godfrey bears date December 18, 1843,

Their recommendations were referred to the second commission, consisting of Mr. Fitz Gerald, on April 10, 1844, and the report of Commissioner Fitz Gerald, which is said to have been adopted, bears date April 22, 1844.

The charge of suppression of evidence made against Mr. Webster in respect to the submission of his claims to the land commission adds force to the impression that the answer to his claims made in the memorandum of Sir Robert Stout is chiefly based upon the ground that Mr. Webster sought to be, and was, treated as a British subject. In the passage above quoted from the memorandum four reasons are set forth to sustain that pretension. In respect to these, it is to be observed:

(1) That the notice issued to claimants required foreigners, as well as British subjects, to present their claims to the commission.

(2) That the commissioners did not possess power to make grants, but only to investigate claims and make reports and recommendations to the governor. (3) That the letter of Mr. Webster of July 20, 1841, in which he submitted seven titles for examination, clearly and unmistakably asserted his American citizenship.

(4) That the reply of the colonial secretary of August 7, 1841, intimating that Mr. Webster's claims would not be considered so long as he should seek the protection of his Government, was inconsistent with the notice previously issued to claimants, and not warranted by the scope and functions of the commission. (5) That Mr. Webster's statement in his letter of October 3, 1841, that he was willing to take his (my) chances with all others" was not a renunciation of his American citizenship nor an assumption of British citizenship.

[ocr errors]

(6) That there is no evidence whatever to show that Mr. Webster was ever supposed to be a British subject, nor is it asserted that he ever performed any act by which he could be held to have assumed that character.

(7) That the statement in the colonial secretary's letter of the 7th of August, 1841, that Mr. Webster was "understood to possess" a British vessel is not an allegation that he did own such a vessel, and that no evidence whatever is adduced to show that the statement had any other foundation than rumor of the vaguest character. No authority is given for the statement; neither name nor description of the vessel is afforded. Mr. Webster denies that he owned such a vessel, and there is no apparent reason to question his denial.

(8) That if it had been true that Mr. Webster owned a British vessel, no law of Great Britain is known by which such ownership would have been tantamount to an act of naturalization.

(9) That, no evidence being adduced to show that Mr. Webster owned a British vessel, the inference sought to be drawn from the assertion that he "did not relinquish the right of a British subject, such as the ownership of a British vessel which he possessed," must be treated as wholly without justification.

(10) That the letter of the colonial secretary of August 7, 1841, may be regarded as conclusive evidence that Mr. Webster had not been naturalized as a British subject.

(11) That that letter was inconsistent with the instructions given to the colonial authorities, as disclosed by the note of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett of February 10, 1844, which says:

"Having now received an answer from the colonial department, the undersigned has the honor to inform Mr. Everett, with reference to the first head of complaint, that, in consequence of certain questions raised by the American consul at Sydney as to the rights and obligations of aliens in New Zealand, instructions were forwarded to the governor of that island in the month of March, 1841, upon which occasion that officer was directed to bear in mind the principle that where aliens had acquired land from the chiefs prior to the proclamation of the Queen's sovereignty there, and that fact was undisputed, the claims should be acknowledged; but that where a doubt arose whether the alien made a bona fide purchase of the land the settler should be treated as any British subject and his claim disposed of accordingly."

(12) That the argument that Mr. Webster elected to be a British subject and to renounce his rights as an American citizen is not sustained by the facts and is unwarranted by the law.

The anxiety exhibited on this subject, and the ingenuity in argument in regard to it in the memorandum of Sir Robert Stout, are amply justified by a review of the

TREATMENT OF MR. WEBSTER'S CLAIMS.

Taking the proceedings of the first commission as set forth in the memorandum, we have the following in respect to Mr. Webster's claims:

Case No. 305.-Two hundred and fifty acres; conveyance by natives; consider

ation, merchandise to value of £208. Report: Bona fide; consideration (goods), £114 128.; Sydney prices, £343_16s.

305 A.-Six hundred acres; deed; consideration (merchandise and cash), £260. Report: Bona fide; 250 acres; consideration (goods), £94 14s. 6d.; Sydney prices, £284 38. 6d.

305 B.-Fifteen hundred acres; deed; merchandise, £90. Report: Bona fide; goods, £71 18s. 6d.; Sydney prices, £215 5s. 6d.

305 C.-Twenty-five hundred acres; deed; merchandise, £203. Report: Bona fide; 800 acres; goods, £89 10s.; Sydney prices, £268 10s.

305 D, 305 E, 305 F, 305 L.—These are alleged to have been withdrawn, and no report appears on them. They comprise 4,000 acres of land and two islands whose area is not stated; and consideration, in cash and merchandise, for the whole is claimed to have been paid to the amount of £1,820.

305 G.-Boundaries stated, but not contents; deed; merchandise, £490. Report: Bona fide; 10,000 acres; goods, £140 88.; Sydney prices, £421 48.

305 H.-Three thousand acres; deed; merchandise, £450. Report: Not purchased from rightful owners.

305 I.-Three thousand acres; deed; merchandise, £108 1s. Report: Bona fide; 3,000 acres; cash, £15; goods, £62 12s.; Sydney prices, £202 16s.

305 J.-Six thousand acres; deed; merchandise, £944. Report: Bona fide; acreage not known; cash and goods, £278; Sydney prices, £834.

305 K.-Eighty thousand acres; deed; cash and merchandise, £1,195. Report: Bona fide; 80,000 acres; cash, £35; goods, £563 16s.; Sydney prices, £1,691 1s. Total, £1,726 8s.

305 M.-Two thousand acres; deed; merchandise, £108. Report: Bona fide; 3,500 acres; cash and goods, £80.

Report: Bona fide;

32.-Twenty thousand acres; deed; merchandise, £1,140. cash and goods, £580 15s.; boundaries, but not contents, stated.

The report of the first commission covers fourteen claims. In respect to eight of these (305, 305 A, 305 B, 305 C, 305 G, 305 I, 305 K. 305 M) the commission found that Mr. Webster had purchased in good faith 108,300 acres. In respect to these same tracts his claims amounted to 119,850 acres. The commission also found that he had paid for them in cash and goods £1,167 10s. 12d., or, in Sydney prices, about £3,427 6s.

Four cases (305 D, 305 E, 305 F, and 305 L) Mr. Webster is alleged to have withdrawn, as he asserts, erroneously. These four comprise 4,000 acres and two islands whose area is not stated. The consideration alleged to have been paid is £1,820. In case 305 H, containing a claim for 3,000 acres (consideration £450), the commission reported that the claimant had not purchased from the rightful

owners.

By their amended report of December 18, 1843, the commissioners recommended the following allowances: In case 305, 240 acres; 305 B, 550 acres; 305 C, 800 acres; 305 G, 1,944 acres; 305 I, 1,187 acres; 305 K, 2,560 acres; total, 7,281 acres, "to be reduced in the aggregate to the maximum grant of 2,560 acres," in accordance with the land ordinance, which forbade a grant of greater extent. But no grants were made upon these recommendations.

In 1844, as above shown, an amendatory ordinance was passed constituting a commission of one person. In April, 1844, the governor brought before the council the awards recommended by Commissioners Godfrey and Richmond in cases 305, 305 A, 305 B, 305 C, 305 G, 305 I, and 305 K, amounting to 7,541 acres; and, upon the advice of the council that the commissioners should be authorized to recommend an extension of the grant, all the awards were referred to the second commission, with instructions to extend the grant.

The second commission, consisting of Mr. Fitz Gerald, reported as follows:

I do most conscientiously recommend for his excellency's approval that grants be issued to the under-mentioned parties, upon a letter of authority to that effect from Mr. Webster:

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Claim No. 305 K, Peter Abercrombie (one-eighth of his purchase from
Webster)..

5,000

Claim No. 305 K, Felton Mathew (one-quarter of his purchase from Webster)

2,560

Claim No. 305 K, John Johnson (one-quarter of his purchase from Webster)

Claim No. 305 K, Vincent Wanostrocht (one-quarter of his pur chase from
Webster)..

1,280

250

Claim No. 305 K, John Wrenn and Jeremiah Nagle (one-quarter of their purchase from Webster)___

150

Claim No. 305 K, Arthur Devilin (one-quarter of his purchase from Webster)...

1,255

[blocks in formation]

Upon this report the memorandum of Sir Robert Stout contains the following comment :

"It must ever remain a mystery how Mr. Commissioner Fitz Gerald could have made such a recommendation."

It is thought that this mystery is completely solved by the commissioner himself in the memorandum which he made of the reasons for his action, and which is found in the report of Sir Robert Stout, as follows:

"MEMORANDUM BY MR. COMMISSIONER FITZ GERALD.

"Reasons for extending a grant of land to Mr. William Webster: "(1) By the accompanying synopsis of the land claims of Mr. Webster it appears that his outlay amounts to £7,787 138., which, according to the valuation scale in the land-claims ordinance, he may be considered as having paid for 50,904 acres; and, even limiting his outlay to the mere payments to the natives, he would be fairly entitled to 17,950 acres.

"(2) Considerable sales of land having been made by him on the faith of all his valid purchases being recognized by the Crown.

“(3) Should he not be enabled, by great liberality on the part of his excellency, to meet his engagements, even partially, he is likely to be overwhelmed with lawsuits and subjected to great losses.

"(4) Mr. Webster is one of the most enterprising settlers in this colony, having established a shipbuilding yard, several whaling stations, water-mills, and other improvements.

66

For these reasons I do most conscientiously recommend for his excellency's approval that grants be issued to the under-mentioned parties, upon a letter of authority to that effect from Mr. Webster."

In view of these reasons, which the memorandum of Sir Robert Stout criticises, but does not in any respect invalidate, it is not perceived why "mystery" should have been attributed to the recommendation of Mr. Commissioner Fitz Gerald. If the reasons stated by that official for his recommendation were not so obviously just and true, it is thought that the adoption, as stated in Sir Robert Stout's memorandum, of that recommendation by the authorities at that time would sufficiently divest it of mystery and demonstrate its propriety. Still more completely does the "mystery" vanish when it is recollected, as herein before pointed out, that it appears by the documents contained in Sir Robert Stout's memorandum that the reference of the awards of the first commission in the cases of Mr. Webster to the second commission, consisting of Mr. Commissioner Fitz Gerald, was "with an instruction to recommend an extension of the grants."

In the memorandum of Sir Robert Stout it is stated that Governor Fitzroy adopted the recommendations of Commissioner Fitz Gerald, and on May 1, 1844, issued grants in accordance with them. It is not asserted that Mr. Webster ever gave the "letter of authority" which the recommendation of Commissioner Fitz

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »