Page:The Tarankaki question.pdf/13

 13 Breatz. Wheit in such rates of value as thoy were anxious to dispose of them before the Treaty, there is not a shadow of ground for alleging that they have been unfairly dealt with; on the contrary, it may be affirmed that history affords no similar example of a savage people having been treated and chcrished by a superior nation as they have hon There is still one print upon which I would, but with great dou nequity allemhele mitede al tipoluter dibiarkan diffidence, offor a remark. It appears (page 74) that "in December, 1859, the opinion of the law officers of the in England hiukille, o likumu was obtained upon the question whether the aboriginal Natives of de where the New Zealand aro entitled to the electoral franchise under the Constitution Act. In their opinion the following passage occurs, -- Could he (one Native) bring an action of ejcctment or trespass a hard wheftech in the Queen's Court in New Zcaland / Does the Queen's Court we have worksh ever exercise any jurisdiction over real property in a Native district We presuno these questions must be answered in the de torilla whal bulan negative. officers hold that the Colonial Courts have no cognizance of quest formur dayo ni tions of titlo or occupancy in any case." (Page 74.) It wouldlaka Unirdedste appear, from the observations that follow, that Sa W. Martin hane sales la desk officers of the Crown, as above quoted. He says : What is cool Piet fille maintained is this : that it was not their business (that of the Meath Natives) to appcal to the law in the first instance, but the busi- ness of the Government." And again : “ This is the point which has been forgotten throughout, that the Govemor in his capacity of land buyer is as much bound by law as other land buyers." (Page 75.) These observations, and those which follow, appcar to me, and I suggest it with humility, to arise from Sir W. Martin's over-looking the specific provision of the Treaty in favor of the general words of the Treaty. known to the law, nor is it subject to, or entitled to be dealt with later, he Law time between the British Government, who had recognized the Whak dow dehur, New Zealanders as competent partics to a Treaty, and the New Zcalauders. To maintain the faith of Treaties thoro cxists no Law. And I confess that, in the responsibility of the Queen's the Frealiz mara long as he is not controlled by what is called a responsible Sharu? ministry, I see a greater security for the duo fulfilment of the Treaty than would be derived from any judicial tribunal which could be created for the purpose, could such an anomaly exist as a tribunal to try the administrative acts of the Government in inatters of so high an import as the fulfilment of a Treaty. The issue, as it appears to me, was not as Sir William Martin puts it IN The native tile" is not excefil le fasted putend to tay