9 Blogs‎ > ‎

Peter Hemmingson


New Zealand is a sovereign nation state.

No international body whose officers have not been elected by regular, secret ballot of New Zealanders has any mandate to determine New Zealand’s domestic or foreign policy -- including (but not limited to) human rights, environmental policy, immigration policy, and policy with respect to minority ethnic groups or religions.

New Zealanders, through their elected representatives in the New Zealand Parliament, are the sole determinants of New Zealand’s domestic and foreign policy.

Immediate, binding public referendum on UNEXIT.

A single common language and culture, to which everyone is required to broadly subscribe, occupies the public square. This is the English language and the New Zealand culture as it has developed since 1840. With the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, by which Maori chiefs agreed that all Maori would become British subjects, the language and culture of the public square became the English language and the Western post-enlightenment culture brought by the settlers.

Minority subcultural associations -- starting with but not limited to Maori language and culture – are thus private matters for those who value them and have no place in the public square. No New Zealander has any rightful claim on any other New Zealander to fund or promote a minority language or subculture.

The language of all public business is to be English only.

Street and shop signage by law to be in English only, the only exception being if a street or place has a Maori name in long-established general usage.

All prospective immigrants over the age of 10 years old, not just the principal applicant for residency, must demonstrate acceptable proficiency in English before they will be permitted to enter New Zealand.

Rights stem from New Zealand citizenship alone, not from membership of any group. In a free society all citizens enjoy individual equality in citizenship. This is so whether some of a citizen’s ancestors arrived in a waka in 1350, a sailing vessel in 1850, an ocean liner in 1950, or more recently by airliner. Even someone who put his hand up 30 seconds ago at a swearing-in ceremony is entitled to all the rights of citizenship. Prior arrival or ancestral longevity in the land is no basis for special privilege.

Group rights, whereby one group enjoys separate, different, or superior rights on the basis of group membership, are anathema to a free society. Group rights create two classes of citizenship where only one existed before. They require the intervention of an activist government forcibly taking rights from one group to bestow upon another. As Richard Prebble reminds us: “One group’s positive discrimination is another group’s negative discrimination.”

If New Zealanders can’t do it in your country, non-citizens don’t get to do it in ours. For example:

If we can’t start a business in your country without a local majority-equity partner, non-citizens don’t get to start a business in ours without a local majority-equity partner.

If we can’t freely move to your country and become a citizen, you don’t get to move to ours and become a citizen.

If we can’t buy freehold property in your country, non-citizens don’t get to buy freehold property in ours.

If we can’t buy land, erect a church, and freely preach Christianity in your country of origin; you don’t get to buy land, erect a mosque, and preach Islam in ours, even if you are a naturalised citizen.

Immigration policy is for the benefit of those who already live in a country, not for the benefit of anyone who might want to come and live there.

We take immigrants with skills that add value for New Zealanders. Immigrants who will hit the ground running, not swell welfare rolls. Preference will be given to applicants whose culture is a good fit with New Zealand’s existing Judeo-Christian, post-Enlightenment culture. This means Europeans, South Africans, North Americans, South Americans, Commonwealth Africans and Indians, skills-qualified Pacific Islanders, Filipinos.

We no longer accept immigrants or refugees from Islamic states. The evidence of other jurisdictions, 30 years further down this path than New Zealand, is way too compelling. Muslims will never integrate, because their religion tells them not to. The rest of the world has seen that wherever Muslims achieve critical mass, they self-segregate and start flexing their religious muscles to the detriment of the host community and culture.

We no longer accept immigrants from Communist countries, as there is an unacceptable risk that they remain loyal to advancing the strategic interests of a foreign power.

We no longer take refugees, most of whom statistically never become productive citizens. There are already enough homegrown bums, bludgers, and moochers without needing to import more.

Anyone arriving in New Zealand without a passport shall be immediately removed to country of origin by the airline that brought them in, with all removal costs the responsibility of the airline concerned.

Any naturalised citizen or permanent resident convicted of acts of terrorism in New Zealand or abroad, or of acts of sedition, espionage, or industrial espionage for the benefit of a foreign power, shall have their citizenship or permanent residency revoked, and shall be immediately deported to country of origin.

If a naturalised citizen or permanent resident is convicted of involvement in acts of terrorism in New Zealand or abroad, or of involvement in acts of sedition, espionage or industrial espionage for the benefit of a foreign power, all family members of such an individual shall have their citizenship or permanent residency revoked, and shall be immediately deported to country of origin.

Any naturalised citizen or permanent resident convicted of a crime carrying a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment or more shall have their citizenship or permanent residency revoked, and shall be immediately deported to country of origin upon the expiration of any custodial sentence imposed by the New Zealand courts.

If any naturalised citizen or permanent resident is convicted of a crime carrying a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment or more, all family members of such an individual shall have their citizenship or permanent residency revoked, and shall be immediately deported to country of origin.

We no longer take “family reunification” migrants unless their naturalised citizen sponsors agree to accept full, permanent responsibility for their upkeep. This means such additional migrants have no claim on New Zealand taxpayers for healthcare, welfare, or superannuation, even if they become naturalised, unless they have worked full-time in New Zealand for an aggregate period of 10 years or more.

If guest workers are needed, they come on fixed-term 12-month guest worker contracts. These can be rolled over for up to 60 months. Upon final expiration of any such contract, guest workers must revert to country of origin. A rolled-over contract or New Zealand-born children confer no ongoing rights of residency or citizenship. For a guest worker to achieve permanent residency, they and any non-citizen family members must leave the country, then apply through the usual channels.

Babies born in New Zealand to one or more non-citizen parents do not achieve New Zealand citizenship by having been born here. They are citizens by birth of their non-citizen parent(s) country of citizenship.

Babies born in New Zealand to one or more permanent resident parents do not achieve New Zealand citizenship until their permanent resident parent(s) become naturalised citizens.

Non-citizens and non-permanent residents do not receive taxpayer-funded treatment within the New Zealand health system. They must carry their own health insurance, meet their own medical costs, or solicit crowd-funding from liberal bleeding hearts in the event of illness or injury.

Only natural-born New Zealand citizens are eligible to run for public office, or to work in government departments. There is an unacceptable level of risk that those born in foreign countries may remain loyal to political ideologies or hold religious beliefs that threaten the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders.

There is no such thing as a right not to be offended.

All other freedoms flow from freedom of speech, the freedom to challenge being the best prophylactic against tyranny. The assault on freedom of speech -- the mob shouting-down of dissenting opinions, the labelling and demonisation of those challenging received dogma and leftist orthodoxy -- began in the universities, spreading out from there into the public square.

The Education Act designated New Zealand’s universities: “The critic and conscience of society.” This opened the door for leftists to mount an essentially destructive attack on our existing society, by taking over the Academy, then using it as a beachhead for their “long march through the institutions.”

Rhetorical question time: “How many ACT or National voters would you expect to find in a university sociology department? And if a known ACT or National voter did apply, do you think they’d be accepted?”

Leftists must be removed as the gatekeepers to how we talk about our society. The Education Act is to be re-written, requiring universities to provide balanced coverage of all sides of contentious issues, including conservative and libertarian viewpoints. As an intellectual counterweight to the Marxists and liberals which they are currently riddled, universities must be required to employ equal numbers of conservative and libertarian professors, teaching staff, and tutors.


[1] The abolition of the racist Maori seats.

[2] The removal of all references to race/culture/ethnicity from the statute books.

[3] The removal of all references to the TOW and its fabricated "principles" from the statute books.

[4] No more taxpayer funding for the teaching of Maori language, culture, and 'history’ and no more tax funding for Maori immersion schools at all levels. If radical 'parts' want these things let them use their Treaty settlement money to do it privately.

[5] The defunding of all parallel social service delivery systems to Maori. If radical 'parts' don't want to use the services available to all NZers, let them use their Treaty settlement money to do it privately.

[6] The restatement in statute that seabed, foreshore, and water are in Crown ownership and held in trust for ALL NZers.

[7] All Maori incorporations to be taxed at the company tax rate with no 'charitable' exemptions allowed.

[8] All communally-owned Maori land to be brought into the Torrens Title system by creating limited liability companies with shares issued to beneficial owners on a pro-rata basis. Shares can be bought/sold/traded with anyone of any race, thus allowing the motivated to build up a majority shareholding to move forward with land that because of current ownership structure cannot be used as security for bank finance. Maori Land Court to be abolished.

[9] Local authority rates to be levied on all Maori land -- including marae and kaumatua housing -- with standard enforcement procedures applied in the event of non-payment. No more free riders on non-Maori ratepayers.

[10] The immediate repeal of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and abolition of the racist Waitangi Tribunal, with [[part-] Maori claims of any kind against the Crown to be dealt with in the Courts and proper evidential procedure applied.

[11] Re-writing the Education Act to change the mission of our universities from being "the critic and conscience of society" to "required to provide intellectual balance and rigour, and equal space for conservative and libertarian viewpoints."

And of course any downstream proposal that the beneficiaries of state-sponsored identity politics revert to being treated the same as everyone else will make such groups squeal like stuck pigs. As Thomas Sowell reminds us: “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.'



NZ's "true and only" Treaty is the Te Reo version. This was what was presented orally to the chiefs, and this is what they agreed to. There is no English version. Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 does not contain the Maori words for "partnership" and "principles."

FIRST OPEN CHALLENGE TO TREATYISTS: point to the words “partnership” and “principles" in Te Tiriti.

This nonsense is of recent invention, and originated in what we might call "The Treaty of Wellington (aka Section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act) 1986.” Activist judges on the Court of Appeal hearing a 1987 case involving the NZ Maori Council then took Section 9’s unclarified in the statute reference to “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” to concoct “partnership” and "principles" out of thin air.

Everything the chiefs said on the lawn at Waitangi and elsewhere, as well as the words of those who refused to sign it, make it abundantly clear they were well-aware that by signing the Treaty this would place Captain Hobson in authority over them, and that behind Hobson was Queen Victoria. Reiterated at the Kohimarama Conference of 1860.

SECOND OPEN CHALLENGE TO TREATYISTS: produce a single primary source account recording the words of a chief who thought he was going into "partnership" or some kind of sovereignty-sharing arrangement with the Crown.

Eyewitness accounts of the pre-Treaty debates make it clear that none of the chiefs who signed it thought they were going into “partnership” with the Crown. Those who spoke up for Hobson also leave no doubt that they expected British sovereignty to bring lasting peace to the land, as well as protecting them from less benevolently inclined foreign powers, such as the French.

THIRD OPEN CHALLENGE TO TREATYISTS: explain why, for 147 years between 1840 and 1987 and the Court of Appeal decision in the New Zealand Maori Council Case, nobody knew that the Treaty of Waitangi was a “partnership" or some kind of sovereignty-sharing arrangement.

It was only after the Court of Appeal invented “partnership” and “principles” in 1987 that demands along these lines first surfaced. If nobody knew that the Treaty of Waitangi was a racial partnership for 147 years, that's probably because it isn’t.

On 5 February 1840, the Treaty was first debated at Waitangi by Ngapuhi chiefs assembled there for that purpose.

Te Kemara (Ngati Kawa) spoke first, observing that the effect of signing the Treaty would be for “the Governor to be up, and Te Kemara down.” Under the Governor, he could be “tried and condemned” and even “hung by the neck” should he behave badly enough.

Rewa (Ngati Taweke) spoke next, saying: “This country is ours … we are the Governor.” Like Te Kemara, Rewa saw that chiefly authority would be trumped by that of Hobson: “[Authority over] Your land will be taken from you and your dignity as chiefs will be destroyed.”

Moka (Patukeha) then stood up. “Let the governor return to his own country. Let us remain where we are [as ruling powers in the land].”

Tamati Pukututu (Te Uri-o-Te-Hawato) was the first to speak up for Hobson: “Sit, Governor, sit, for me, for us. Remain here, a father for us.”

Matiu (Uri-o-Ngongo) stood next, reiterating what the previous speaker had said: “Do not go back, but sit here, a Governor, a father for us.”

Kawiti (Ngati Hine) was another who rejected the Governor: “We do not want to be tied up and trodden down. We are free. Let the missionaries remain, but, as for thee, return to thine own country.” His fellow chiefs were warned that acceptance of Hobson meant the Governor would be able to order: “Kawiti must not paddle this way, nor paddle that way, because the Governor said ‘No.’”

Pumuka (Te Roroa) rose next, saying: “I will have this man a foster-father for me.” To the Governor: “I wish to have two fathers – thou and Busby, and the missionaries.”

Warerahi (Ngaitawake), then addressed his fellow chiefs: “Is it not good to be in peace? We will have this man as our Governor” and “Say to this man of the Queen, Go back! No, no.”

Hakiro (Ngatinanenane) was another recalcitrant: “We are not thy people. We are free. We will not have a Governor.”

Tareha (Ngatirehia) stood after Hakiro and told Hobson: “We, we only are the chiefs, rulers. We will not be ruled over.” Never would he accept “the Governor up high” and Tareha “down, under, beneath!”

Rawiri (Ngatitautahi) rose to greet the Governor in English as his “Father,” saying, “Stay here, O Governor! … that we may be in peace.” Hone Heke (Matarahurahu) reiterated what previous speakers in favour of Hobson had said: “Remain, Governor, a father for us.”

Hakitara (Te Rarawa), also stood up for the Governor, though most of his words were drowned out by side conversations taking place after Heke had spoken.

Tamati Waka Nene (Ngatihao) then told Hobson: “[R]emain for us – a father, a judge, a peacemaker. Stay thou, our friend, our father, our Governor.”

Eruera Maehe Patuone, Tamati Waka Nene’s older brother, spoke next, saying: “Remain here with us, to be a father for us, that the French have us not.”

Te Kemara (who’d spoken first) here jumped up again, saying to the Governor: “Go away; return to thine own land.” To the chiefs, he said: “Let us all be alike [in rank, in power].” Then in an abrupt about-face he told Hobson: “O Governor! remain. But, the Governor up! Te Kemara down, low, flat! No, no, no.” After all that, he still signed it.

After the Treaty was endorsed by the chiefs at Waitangi, Crown agents went throughout New Zealand seeking signatures. Most chiefs could see the benefit of signing and soon did so, but a substantial minority, centred on the Tainui, Tuwharetoa and Tuhoe tribes did not. The words and actions of non-signatories make it clear they had no intention of being ruled over by someone else.

Revisionist assertions that the word “mana” (prestige, evidence of breeding) should have been used in the Treaty instead of “kawanatanga” (governance) to ensure the chiefs understood what they were actually being asked to give up are politically useful but factually vacuous.

For example, Piko, a chief at Coromandel, rejected the Treaty because he could “see no necessity for placing himself under the dominion of any prince or queen, as he was desirous of governing his own tribe.”

Mananui Te Heuheu, paramount chief of Tuwharetoa also refused to sign, saying “I will never consent to the mana of a woman resting upon these islands. I myself will be chief in these isles: therefore begone!”

Potatau Te Whero Whero, paramount chief of Tainui, was greatly angered to learn that a handful of minor Tainui chiefs had signed the Treaty at Port Waikato on their own initiative and without his prior approval. To head off any suggestion that the Queen’s authority might extend over the Tainui tribes, he made them return the Crown’s red blankets they’d been given in return for their signatures.

The Kohimarama Conference of 1860 was attended by 112 Maori Chiefs, many of whom were Ngapuhi. It had been called to discuss the direct challenge that the Kingitanga [Maori King] Movement was mounting to the Queen’s sovereignty, something the loyal chiefs expected the Crown to quell in the interests of national unity.

Its recorded proceedings further explode Waitangi Tribunal myth-making that those who signed the Treaty had no idea this would make British subjects of all Maori. In opening the Conference, Governor Gore Browne told the chiefs there assembled: “Her Majesty has instructed the Governors who preceded me, and she will instruct those who come after me, to maintain the stipulations of this Treaty inviolate, and to watch over the interests and promote the advancement of her subjects without distinction of Race.”

Speeches by the chiefs
, many of whom had signed the Treaty 20 years before, reiterated their understanding of what this commitment entailed:

Wi Te Tete: “Listen ye Pakehas, and ye Maori Chiefs! We have now become one people under the Queen.”

Hori Kerei Te Kotuku: “When you arrived we were dwelling in ignorance, we were blind. First came Christianity, after that the Law. I saw that there was salvation for me. You appointed magistrates. We received them. It was during the time of Governor Grey that we first recognized the Queen's authority. He said there is no other Sovereign for us but the Queen. I did not receive the Law without consideration. I sought it carefully in the pages of Scripture. I did not search in ignorance. I saw its benefits, and then I embraced it. Now the Queen is my Sovereign.”

Te Ahukaramu: “These are the things which I desire. First, God: secondly, the Queen: thirdly, the Governor. Let there be one Queen for us. Make known to us all the laws, that we may all dwell under one law.”

Raniera Te Iho: “I offer my land, in the proper manner, to the Governor. True the land passes across to the Governor, but then I get my price for it. Should I afterwards stretch forth my hand after my land that would be wrong. I prove my allegiance to the Queen by parting with my lands. I give up my land to Queen Victoria, and to the Kings and Queens, her successors.”

Tohi Te Ueurangi: “Let the Queen be above all. I have nothing more to say.”

In 1863, supported (and often aided in the field) by the majority of leading North Island chiefs, the Crown fulfilled its Treaty promise to uphold the sovereignty of New Zealand against the challenge of the Tainui tribes who’d never signed the Treaty in the first place. It put down the Kingitanga Movement by force of arms and punished Tainui with land confiscations as it had earlier warned.

The Reverend John Warren, a Wesleyan missionary and an eyewitness to events surrounding the signing of the Treaty in Northland, wrote: "I was present at the great meeting at Waitangi when the celebrated treaty was signed, and also at a meeting which took place subsequently on the same subject at Hokianga. There was a great deal of talk by the natives, principally on the subject of securing their proprietary right in the land, and their personal liberty. Everything else they were only too happy to yield to the Queen, as they said repeatedly, because they knew they could only be saved from the rule of other nations by sitting under the shadow of the Queen of England.

“In my hearing they frequently remarked, ‘Let us be one people. We had the Gospel from England, let us have the law from England.’ My impression at the time was that the natives perfectly understood that by signing the treaty they became British subjects, and though I lived among them more than fifteen years after that event, and often conversed with them on the subject, I never saw the slightest reason to change my opinion.”

In 1922, Sir Apirana Ngata summarised the effect of the Treaty of Waitangi with considerable clarity, finality, and certainty: “Article I of the Treaty transfers all chiefly authority to the Queen forever, and the embodiment of that authority is now the New Zealand Parliament. For that reason, all demands for absolute Maori authorities are nothing more than wishful thinking.”

The partnership fallacy came about because the 1984 Labour Government placed references to “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” into key legislation that it passed. These references had first appeared in Section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, but lay unnoticed and dormant until included in the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, which at Section 9 states: "nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi."

Richard Prebble was Minister of State-Owned Enterprises in the Fourth Labour Government when the Bill which became the SOE Act was in its final drafting stage. Prebble wanted to sell off a number of state-owned enterprises he’d identified as suitable to be privatised. Labour’s Maori MPs were becoming increasingly resistant to this proposal, which they feared would open the door to the selling off of substantial Crown landholdings, thus preventing them being applied to future Treaty settlements.

To hose down these concerns, Prebble’s colleague, Attorney-General Geoffrey Palmer, inserted the wording quoted above into the new State-Owned Enterprises Act. By Prebble’s retrospective account, Palmer told him at the time that the clause was meaningless, would never apply to anything, and was just a way to get Labour’s Maori MPs off his back.

What many would regard as a deliberate failure to define these “principles” in statue then allowed the Waitangi Tribunal and activist judges on the Court of Appeal to usurp the proper law-making function of Parliament.

The tricky Palmer, a Victoria University of Wellington Law Professor before going into politics, was likely to have been well aware of what he was doing. His supposedly meaningless clause handed judicial activists the opportunity to make far-reaching rulings that the electorate would never have accepted had they came from politicians. Labour could then turn around and blame the judges, thus washing its hands of responsibility for outcomes it had actually wanted to promote in the first place.

While this dodge may have fooled low information voters, the New Zealand Parliament is our supreme source of law, not the Courts. Had the Fourth Labour Government been truly unhappy about the way in which liberal judges fell over themselves to flesh out the “principles” clause, it could have appealed the ruling to a higher Court, repealed the clause altogether, or amended it to provide firm direction to the Judiciary.

The Appellate Court in the relevant case would have been the Privy Council, an overwhelmingly conservative body known throughout the Western world for interpreting the law according to law and precedent, rather than according to the social and political opinions of its constituent judges.

Thousands of kilometres away in England, the Law Lords might be expected to have been above the trendy Treatyism prevailing in New Zealand, and to have made the correct ruling. This would have been to strike down the judicial adventurism of the New Zealand judges, and to refer the matter back to the New Zealand Parliament for proper clarification in statute.

No prizes for guessing why Helen Clark’s Fifth Labour Government later abolished appeals to the Privy Council, thereby rendering New Zealand’s highest judicial body a local one.

The partnership myth entered the public square through an erroneous decision of the Court of Appeal in a 1987 case involving the New Zealand Maori Council. It is founded upon what researcher, Alan Everton describes as: “nothing more than the opinion of five judges, who combined a lamentable ignorance of New Zealand history with a willingness to ignore the constitutional principle that they were appointed to apply the law, not make it.”

The New Zealand Maori Council had asked the Court of Appeal whether the government’s plans to transfer land to state-owned enterprises breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. To answer that question the Court took it upon itself to decide what those principles were.

The Court of Appeal’s proper response in this matter would have been to reserve its decision, then ask Parliament to define in statute how (if at all) “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” differed from its simple black letter clauses. Yet the President of the Court of Appeal, Cooke J. managed to state in his ruling that “The Treaty signified a partnership between races ...”

He went on to pepper the balance of his ruling with a raft of other such references and concluded: “[the Treaty] principles require the Pakeha and Maori Treaty partners to act towards each other reasonably and with the utmost good faith.”

The notion that the Treaty established a partnership was independently agreed to by all five members of the Court of Appeal, though expressed in somewhat different terms by each. More insidiously, the Court took the view that, to use Cooke J’s words: “The Treaty should be seen as an embryo, rather than as a fully developed set of ideas …”

This “living document” approach taken by the Court of Appeal’s activist judges effectively turned the Treaty’s black letter clauses into a kete (flax basket) for anything that Maori activists wanted to lay subsequent claim to.

The Court’s partnership invention was then slid into various Waitangi Tribunal reports, such as the Tribunal’s Muriwhenua Fishing Report of 1988, which suggested that Maori had a right: “to tribal self-management on lines similar to what we understand by local government.”

The sanction of the Courts and pro-claimant Waitangi Tribunal was all that Maori Sovereignty activists and their white liberal enablers in the Fourth Labour Government needed to begin spinning a revisionist narrative of the Treaty’s meaning and intent.

In 1989, the Fourth Labour Government noted that “the Government, the Courts, and the Waitangi Tribunal are each developing their own set of ‘Treaty principles’” because this was “not defined in legislation.” How very perceptive.

Prime Minister, David Lange, acting under “executive authority,” announced a laundry list of “principles” under which his Government intended to operate. To this day, these have never been presented to Parliament for ratification.

Successive governments, both National- and Labour-led, have left the Fourth Labour Government’s 1989 “Treaty principles” undisturbed for the last 27 years. The Treaty Gravy Train based on a fabricated and misconstrued version of the Treaty chugs on and on, gathering carriages and picking up momentum as it rolls.

Powerful vested interests -- Treaty lawyers, revisionist “historians,” politicians seeking moral preening opportunities for “saving the Maori,” public servants employed in the Treaty Industry, and a Brown Table Iwi elite with snouts buried deep in the public trough -- make this Gravy Train increasingly difficult to derail.

In point of fact, subsequent governments are free to modify Lange’s highly presumptuous nonsense at any time as they see fit. Currently, they are not obliged to genuflect to it in perpetuity, which explains why the Maori Party is so keen to get the Treaty of Waitangi (or rather its bogus “principles”) into a written Constitution. Then we will never remove its strangling tentacles from our national life. Nor will we ever be rid of the permanently embedded, self-anointed part-Maori racial aristocracy such a move would create.

The Treaty’s simple black letter clauses were never intended to create a “living document” or as a blueprint for an ongoing racial partnership. As Alan Everton reminds us, “the Treaty was a treaty of cession, and like all such was concerned with rights and territory, with defining what rights and territory were held or ceded by the contracting parties.”