CHAPTER VI
THE TREATY
Captain Hobson having now by his own efforts and the agency of those who were associated with him completed his negotiations with the native chiefs, it remains for us to examine briefly the nature of the compact into which the Maori and Pakeha had thus solemnly entered. The Treaty of Waitangi is a document of few clauses and precise terms. Yet under the conflicting interests which it was designed to harmonise few documents have been more generally misunderstood or more persistently misinterpreted. More than once in high places its utility has been denied, its simple contracts have been repudiated, and its existence has been ignored. Lawyers have repeatedly questioned its legality, courts have discussed its constitutional force, parliaments have debated its wisdom, but still it stands to-day—unaltered in text or spirit—the great charter of Maori rights. Its most virulent enemies have ever been the land speculators, and there are not wanting signs in these times of unsatisfied land hunger—of never-ceasing speculation—that the treaty has either been forgotten by those whose duty it is to remember it, or that its obligations have ceased to have their old-time moral value. Lest we forget that the treaty is still in force, and that native lands are not common plunder for the avaricious Pakeha, let us briefly review the circumstances which made the compact between the two nations a political virtue, if not a political necessity.
It is a principle recognised by the civilised nations of the Earth that the discovery of a waste and uninhabited land by a pioneering country confers on that country a right, as against all other civilised countries, to colonise its new discovery. In such a case the discovering nation may in fact go further, by immediately taking possession of the new-found territory, and assuming sovereignty over it. In this way Norfolk Island being found devoid of inhabitants by Captain Cook, his discovery of the sea-girt isle not only entitled Britain to colonise it, but automatically added it to the possessions of the Empire. This principle has thus been concisely stated by Vattel: "All men have an equal right to the things which have not yet fallen into the possession of any one; and these things appertain to the first occupant. Wherefore, when a nation finds a country uninhabited and without a master, it may lawfully seize upon the same, and after it has adequately denoted its will in this respect another cannot thereof despoil it. Thus navigators going on their voyages of discovery, provided with a commission from their sovereign, and falling in with desert islands, or other desert lands, have taken possession of them in the name of their nation, and commonly this title has been respected, provided that thereupon a real possession has closely followed."
It is equally an acknowledged maxim of the Law of Nations that should the newly discovered land not prove to be "waste and without a master," but that it should be inhabited and under government of any kind, then the mere fact of its discovery by a civilised nation confers upon the discoverer no title to the soil, but only the prior right to colonise as against other colonising nations. This is but the natural reward which belongs to the enterprise displayed in fitting out ships and expeditions destined to navigate unknown seas or to travel in unknown lands. Such prior right to colonise is, however, strictly limited by the important consideration that colonisation can only take place with the free will and consent of the savage or semi-civilised inhabitants of the newly discovered country. In no sense does the act of discovery confer the right of property in the land, or the right of sovereignty over its people. That is to say, in the abstract, no nation whatever can under any pretext violate the rights of any other independent nation. This was clearly the principle which guided those British Governments to whose lot fell the establishment of the first colonies in America. In all these cases was the property of the Indian tribes respected, and no land was acquired save by purchase, or by some other equitable arrangement made with the aboriginal owners.[156] Hence in the celebrated case of the Cherokee tribe against the State of Georgia, tried in 1832, before the late Chief-Justice Marshall, that eminent judge was able to declare that as the United States had only inherited its rights from Great Britain after the War of Independence, the individual States could not assume rights greater than Britain had claimed to possess prior to that event. No right in Cherokee lands therefore vested in the State until the Indian title had been honourably extinguished.
This equitable principle has not always been observed between so-called civilised nations and semi-barbarous peoples, but that it has long held a place amongst the ideals of men is suggested to us by the Phoenician legend, that when the merchant princes of Tyre and Sidon resolved to establish a trading factory on the site upon which subsequently rose the city of Carthage, they fairly bought the land from the natives of Northern Africa, the area being determined by the length of the thongs cut from a bullock's hide. Such a story, coming down to us as it does through the hoary mists of time, may or may not appeal to our practical present-day minds, but the fact that it was commonly told and commonly accepted amongst the ancients is at least an indication that the principles which govern the conduct of modern nations towards their less fortunate brethren are founded upon and have the sanction of great antiquity.
When we come to apply these principles to New Zealand it is of course necessary to remember that the first European discoverer[157] of this Dominion was not Cook, but Abel Tasman. The Dutchman's association with the country was, however, so cursory, and his nation's subsequent interest in it so nominal, that to the sailor it appeared only as "a great land uplifted high," while to his countrymen it was known only as a vague scrawl upon the chart. That Tasman's discovery of 1642 gave the Dutch a right to colonise in New Zealand had they been so disposed is undoubted; but whatever rights they had thus acquired, such were clearly exhausted by Holland's failure to assert them during the long period of 135 years that elapsed before Cook came to make a reality of what to Tasman had only been a shadow.
With his characteristic thoroughness Cook left no weak link in the claim which he made on behalf of his nation. He landed on our shores, held intercourse with the natives, he surveyed our coasts, he took formal possession of both Islands "in the name, and for the use of His Majesty King George III."
"A philosopher perhaps might enquire on what ground Lieutenant Cook could take formal possession of this part of New Zealand in the name and for the use of the King of Great Britain, when the country was already inhabited, and of course belonged to those by whom it was inhabited, and whose ancestors might have resided in it for many preceding ages. To this the best answer seems to be that the Lieutenant in the ceremony performed by him had no reference to the original inhabitants, or any intention to deprive them of their national rights, but only to preclude the claims of further European navigators, who under the auspices and for the benefit of their respective States, or Kingdoms, might form pretensions to which they were not entitled by prior discovery."
So wrote one of the great explorer's most friendly biographers, and in his dispassionate review of the facts we have a correct summation of the rights which Cook's discoveries did and did not confer upon our nation. Clearly New Zealand was not a country in which, or over which, Britain could, by Cook's act, acquire a bona fide possession, for it was inhabited by a strong and virile people, living under a system of government adequate in all respects for their social and military purposes.