his claim must depend upon the decision arrived at by the joint consent of both governments, thus informing him, as Governor Gipps had previously informed the United States consul at Sydney, that Mr. Webster's claims should be considered as an international matter between his government and the government that was threatening to proceed against him. In his reply, October 11, 1841, to this communication, Mr. Webster did not in the least qualify the claim of citizenship advanced by his previous letter, by "distinctly" or at all, stating that he desired to claim as a British subject, although he had been required to so "distinctly state" if he desired. to so claim. He thus clearly continued, and reaffirmed, and left in force his previous assertion of rights as an American citizen. He thus kept himself within the protection of all his rights as an American citizen, not only those which he was entitled to under general principles of international law, but those which were conceded to all American citizens in like case by the letter which Lord Aberdeen had addressed to Mr. Everett; so that, in proceeding against Mr. Webster's estates, all the commissions proceeded subject to this defense and assertion of right, and they proceeded against him as an American citizen.

Having done this he could not, while retaining his actual citizenship, take away from his government its rights, or lessen its duty, to resist a decree that was no less than a national injustice inflicted upon an American citizen. The pretension could not be justified, nor could any conduct of Mr. Webster condone a measure so arbitrary and in principle utterly indefensible.

Nor was the claim of William Webster to his lands in New Zealand, which was perfected by conveyances from the owners of the soil, made to him before the Government of Great Britain had acquired sovereignty over those islands, forfeited, nor did he forfeit his rights as an Ameriacn citizen, by demanding from that government, in any form, or in any tribunal, their recognition and full and just protection. To all that he was entitled as an American citizen he continued to be and now is entitled, and he had no need to be made a subject of the Queen of Great Britain in order to enjoy rights conceded to him by that government.

It was possibly unobjectionable in the colonial authorities to require all denizens of the island to bring forward their claims and designate their boundaries; this might be a proper regulation in the

institution of a new government for the administration of its lands. But when the commissioners went beyond this purpose, and proceeded to forfeit and escheat titles and estates, many of which they conceded to be bona fide, they exceeded their jurisdiction, not only upon general principles of law, but also under the limitations prescribed by their instructions.

Mr. Webster, as a denizen of the islands at and before the treaty concluded at Waitangi, February 6, 1840, was entitled to its benefits. By this treaty Great Britain confirmed and guaranteed to the chiefs and tribes and to the respective families and individuals thereof the exclusive and undisturbed possession of all of their lands and estates, which they may collectively or individually possess so long as they may desire to retain the same.

Under the provisions of the treaty, the Government of Great Britain had no right to forfeit the lands thus guaranteed to the chiefs and tribes, nor had it the right to forfeit the title of any of their grantees.

Concerning this treaty, and its violation in this respect, your committee have heretofore observed:

It would be difficult to select language that would more clearly import a perfect ownership in all the soil of New Zealand, in the chiefs, the people as tribes, and as private owners, than that which is guaranteed in the treaty itself. Such a title, afterwards acquired by any person in Great Britain, in lands to which he had no title at the time he had previously attempted to convey the land to another, would, by relation and estoppel, accrue to such grantee the moment that he got such a deed, or a treaty had granted the title to him. These chiefs had conveyed these lands to Mr. Webster before the date of the treaty. As no exception is made in the treaty of the rights of the persons to whom these prior conveyances had been made, their titles are necessarily confirmed by its terms, unless they were obtained by fraud. So that Mr. Webster, if he had no other claim to the land, would be entitled, under the laws of England, to the benefit of the express grant in this treaty, made to the chiefs from whom he had purchased and who had previously conveyed the land to him.

But his titles were of equal dignity with that afterwards acquired by Great Britain, as it relates to the sovereign power from which they are derived. They are of equal validity and force with. the title of Great Britain, as it relates to the fact of the prior ownership of the lands by the chiefs and tribes. They are of equal in

tegrity, as it relates to the consideration paid for these lands, and of as much greater moral value, as a voluntary contract stands above one made under coercion, in the estimation of all civilized. people.

Mr. Webster's title came first, in point of time, from the same sovereign power that Great Britain expressly recognizes in this treaty, and it was purchased for value from the people whom he had been at great expense and labor to benefit, and who, even in their savage state, appreciated and were grateful for his kindness.

This treaty was preceded by British royal proclamations, prepared and issued just before the treaty was signed. It was under these proclamations that the rights of William Webster and other American citizens in New Zealand were afterwards stricken down.

The result has been that all of Mr. Webster's estate except 17,655 acres, which we have shown the British Government allowed and granted to his creditors and obligees or for their benefit, has been absorbed into the colonial domain, and sold as public property.

The history of this case, all of its particulars being considered, presents such repeated instances of injustice, and of delay and denial of justice by the final action of the Government of Great Britain refusing even to consider Mr. Webster's claim for reparation, as to warrant the further interposition of the United States. The case is such a one as would, if necessary, after all other methods of redress had been exhausted, justify special reprisals. Upon this the leading publicists are in agreement.

An injury committed upon one of his subjects, for which justice has been plainly denied, or unreasonably delayed, warrants a sovereign in issuing letters of marque or reprisal. (3 Phillimore, International Law, ed. 1857, p. 13.)

International justice may be denied in several ways: (1) by the refusal of a nation either to entertain the complaint at all or to allow the right to be established before its tribunals; or (2) by studied delays and impediments for which no good reason could be given and which are equivalent to a refusal, or (3) by an evidently unjust and partial decision. (Law of Nations, by Sir Travers Twiss, Part 1, p. 36.)

To render legitimate the use of reprisals it is not at all necessary that the ruler against whom this remedy is to be employed, nor his subjects, should have used violence or made any seizure or any other irregular attempt upon the property of the other nation. or its subjects; it is enough that he has denied justice. (Valin.) It may happen that a nation, disregarding those moral obliga

tions which bind states and individuals alike, unlawfully seizes the property of another, refuses to pay an admitted debt, suspends without reason the performance of a conventional engagement, procrastinates reparation for an evident injury or denies manifest justice or an equitable indemnity for losses caused by its own fault, in cases in which its own responsibility is directly engaged. In all these cases, after having exhausted all the means of conciliation to the end that justice may be done, the offended and injured nation has the incontestable right, before appealing to arms, to resort to measures of enforcement, more or less rigorous, more or less extensive, generally defined under the name of reprisals. (1 Calvo, Droit Intern., sec. 675.)

In expressing these considerations respecting the right of special reprisals your committee do not desire to be understood as advising such action. The most important function at the present day of this principle of international law is its force as an argument in support of a proposition for arbitration in such cases as this, and it is solely with that view, at present, that your committee has alluded to it.

Your committee recommended the adoption of the following resolutions:

Resolved by the Senate, That after due reëxamination of the matters presented in the petition of William Webster, and the evidence brought to their attention in support of his claim for indemnity from the British Government for lands in New Zealand, purchased by him in good faith from native chiefs, and duly conveyed to him before the Government of Great Britain acquired the sovereignty over that country by a treaty made with said chiefs, and after due examination of the refusal of the Government of Great Britain to entertain such claim, and of the allegations and principles upon which such refusal is based, the Senate of the United States consider that said claim for indemnity is founded in justice and deserves the cognizance and support of the Government of the United States. And that said claim, as a claim for money indemnity, was not presented by the United States to Great Britain. prior to September, 1858.

Resolved, That the President is requested to take such measures as, in his opinion, may be proper to secure to William Webster a just settlement and final adjustment of his claim against Great Britain, growing out of the loss of the lands and other property in New Zealand, of which he has been deprived by the act or consent of the British Government, and to which he had acquired

a title under purchases and deeds of conveyance from the native chiefs, prior to February 6, 1840, and prior to any right of Great Britain to said islands; and that the President is particularly requested, among other measures that may seem to him proper, to propose to the Government of Great Britain that the entire contention be submitted to arbitration to the end that a final and conclusive settlement thereof and of all questions involved may be thereby attained.

Senate Ex. Doc. No. 23, Fifty-Second Congress, First Session. [Appended to Sen. Misc. Doc. 167.]

Message from the President of the United States, Transmitting a Report of the Secretary of State Upon the Claim of William Webster Against the Government of Great Britain.

JANUARY 26, 1892.-Read, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed.

To the Senate of the United States:

Referring to a communication of June 11, 1890, concerning the adoption by the Committee on Foreign Relations of a resolution respecting the claim of William Webster against the Government of Great Britain, I herewith transmit a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying documents, showing the action taken under that resolution.

EXECUTIVE MANSION,

Washington, January 25, 1892.

BENJ. HARRISON.

The PRESIDENT:

On the 11th of June, 1890, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations advised you of its adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the papers in the case of William Webster be transmitted to the President with the statement that the committee respectfully recommend this matter to his attention, with the accom