The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1861-04-18

, In ISIS. the King gave Government q few
: strips Of land running from the Saa :, the noun
tain. and on the 10th Of June, $50. he gave );
one half of the wild bullock. and ON the 2Sth of
March. 1851. the Supreme Court lecraei that al
the Wild cattle belong equally u the King and
r. G. Janion. ON behalf # Government. hU- thar
they nave No right 70 20 ou private lands 70 cap
tIrr them. In ISIS. the kim gave lis chiefs
strips Of land running from the sen % the tops Of
the mountains, layin. side and side with those IF
King and Government, and upon which these
same wild cattle now range and pasture Have
these laudholders any claim upon the wild cattle
Tor IaStura.e since ISIS? The c1ur; s.y no.
Here the shoe pinches. and we think the court
made q great mistake " ignoring the rights of
those upon Whose lands the wild cattle deY.stUre.
The chiefs ailodial right to the soil i ~ old as
Governments. Why have the court ignored this
fact? Il i Is patent - any other fact mention
81 in their decision. Had it been recognized. it
would have been a very perplexing element to
Ct rid of. IF Wild bullock We're imrcrishabla
property and cost nothing t. feed them. the reso-
luton by King in Council on the 10th of June,
1850. would have some meaning, and there would
he no question about ownership of property. but
Is there Is not now living Il single bullock. then
in question. it becomes a very different thing, for,
the bullock contemplated in the decision Of the
court. have fed and fatteuei at the expens, most
" of these unrecognized landholderS.
Here lies the whole gist of the matter, and the
court had a capital opportunity to exercise, not
only sound discretion" but sound common
sense and justice, by awarding 10 every land
holder alike the wild cattle that had grown up
at his expense. No one, with reason, could have
complained Of that, not even the defendant. for
we verify believe it would have been more 10 his
interests than the present decision. The court
have pushed him forth conspicuously as the
o,rner Of the wild bullock. a status. u mark To be
legally shot at, not an intangible, chimerical,
paddy's hea sort of constitutional government
that is nowhere when anybody wants to sue it.
but is always on hand and all-powerful when
any one Is to be sued. According to former de
cisions of the court. Il person can sue for trespass
and damages Of cattle upon his premises and hold
them in his possession till satisfied in law. But,
say the court, the landholder trespassed upon
cannot Z. convert to his use the wild cattle tres
passing upon him. neither can defendant 20 upon
other than the Government and Kings lands TO
capture his own cattle. \ pretty kettle of fish,
this, If the parties are stubborn and won't COM
promise matters, which they are very apt to be
Nlcli qudIItllllz. Ia Sucl Il case Whit Is 10 De
done? Let the cattle eat, Gle and rot where they
were born? \ far-seeing policy that, and some
thing any Judiciary might feel proud Of. If one
We're not sure of the integrity of our court, he
might suspect the decision was made with a view
to coerce the numerous landlords into paying the
defendant a round sum to compromise matters,
but we don't think they will if they are CON
scious OF their own position. If the parties will
not compromise matters the alternative is a law
suit, and that appears to be the whole aim and
burden of the decision rs it now stands. No?
Suppose q laudholder refuses to compromise with
defendant then the wild bullock on his land will
eat and die to no purpose, for no one can take
them. Suppose again that the landholder does
convert them to his use, the defendant will sue
for the hides the landlord offsets for tre>Pass
and damages of course a jury or court must
award them the costs are Aridsd between the
parties litigant, which viii amount to more than
the hides are worth then finally each pays his
lawyers fees. There Is fun ahead and plenty of
it, if the halfwild and hirsute mountaincers of
Hawaii condescend to take notice of this judicial
behest. Whoever says or does aught 10 encour-
age litigation is a-public beneiactor.
1t is mentioned in the decision, that, in the
general appropriation bill Of the year lS54-5,
the Legislature appropriated $4,000 for the con-
struction Of road from Waimca to IIilo, : to be
paid out of the avails of wild cattle, as proof of
the Government right to dispose Of said wild cat
tie. Ia that bill the Kings right Is ignored as
well rs the rights of the landholdcrs. The fact
that the King signed the bill is no argument in
its favor, for all know the misty state of the late
health at that time, and the less said upon
point the better. &
1t IS further stated in the text, " that up to
Il few years back. when any of the noun
cattle happened to be penued with the cattle
IF private owners, during 4 general - drive in |
hey were treated as the property of Government, |
md held ut the disposal OF its agents" True
.nough. 1t must be remembered, however. that I
he chiefs did not receive their lands till 1913, '
md that they were not sure they held those o
ands 10y their original boundaries until repeated e
V assured Of the fact by the board of land COM O
nissioners several years after, and it Is doubtful b
f they are all positively certain Of that fact at b
his day hence there is good reason for their not c
ppearing at the general - drive in, and claim r
ng their own or asserting their Fights at other '
ines, and thereby establishing "A preScr7prrc l
light. None realizes more clearly than the court,
he fact that the chiefs are exceedingly slow in "
sserting their rights under Il new law, particu- "
if those rights are acquired IT the expense II
f the MOI such being the ease, the true policy c
to foster the rights Of the ignorant and not tC
rush them under the " no prescription" argu- IS
tent. \ still wider policy, namely. the interest
f the many, instead of the few, which is a ma oil
onal interest, should have ruled. "
al
- In its last issue. our contemporary - caves &C
- on the Constitution question, and piteously p
limits it did not mean to say what il: did, :
nat its all a . mares nest, " and begs pardon
the public. Very well. we accept the apollo