Page 42.

The points in dispute, then, were not so difficult to ascertain as they appeared to be at page 17. William King, it is said, representing the whole tribe, stands upon the fact that the whole tribe have not consented to sell the Waitara land.

As has been said already, it must not be believed for a moment that William King is the Chief of the whole tribe. William King is undoubtedly a chief of the Manukorihi section of the Ngatiawa tribe. He never has been and never would be acknowledged by the other sections of the tribe as the head chief of Ngatiawa.

But even if he were, the difficulty at once arises as to what is meant by the consent of the whole tribe. Does Sir W. Martin mean that it is necessary in every sale to get the consent of every man? not of the families, or subdivisions, or "communities," but of the whole tribe? If so, in the case of Ngatiawa, scattered as that tribe is, it is of course a simple impossibility. Being an impossibility it has never been attempted, and yet, without it, large blocks of land have been acquired at Taranaki.

If this is not what Sir W. Martin means, what is his meaning? Does he mean a majority of the tribe? If so, what majority? How many men of the tribe will be sufficient to constitute a veto on a sale—one, or ten, or fifty? These questions are not irrelevant or unfair. It was the bounden duty of Sir W. Martin, 1st, not to state an impossible proposition: 2nd, having used a term which in its natural sense affirmed an impossible proposition, to define his term in that sense in which it could be specifically assented or objected to.