The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1865-07-01
Bishop SIaIey'- Pastoral Address.
(Coucluded

II CuatE yes MaIS Oh page OAs IL II suNJSOt VI 4S
sionary lands.
He first finds fault with the appointment Of fa or
six missionaries as land agents. These gentlnen
were appointed during the labOrs of the Land 6m-
mission between the years 1851 and 1860. and lost
of them resided in the more remote and backHods
districts. In most Of these districts the missionries
were at the time almost the only persons in the en-
munity who were qualified by local knowledge othe
lands, by acquaintance with the people and theiran-
guage, and by business capacity and integrity, be
intrusted with the duties Of land agents. The iuin-
uation, for it is nothing more. that they favred
Church members in the sales which they effected and
threw obstacles in the way of immoral persons ur-
chasing land, does not merit 8 reply.
But it is a much more serious matter wher he
asserts that certain land which the Chiefs had gSen
TO the American Board Of Missions as endowmnts
in perpetuity for the support Of a Gospel Ministry,
were transferred by the American Board to indiid-
ual missionaries as their private property. All hat
is needed TO clear up this matter is the knowlede Of
n few simple facts.
Now, as TO the manner in which these lands ere
granted, they were in the first place given by the chefs
TO individual missionaries Internationally from alta,
and without any such Interior views as Bishop Stley
attributes to them. Thus a piece of land at Lahina
was given to Mr.. Richards, the land Of Punoha, to
VII DlHgudiH, u tract u haliDea L MT. Nnltley,
sc. Had the principles of the missionaries allowed
them TO own land. and had they taken advantage of
their position, they might have become the wealtiest
land holders in the country.
But by the rules which the Missionaries themselves
had adopted, no member of their body could own inv
real estate whatever, but the title to all such prp-
erty was transferred to the Board at Boston. Until
the year 1S4S not one of them, as far as the writer
can learn, owned a foot of land or even n COW. thus
when Mr.. Richards left the Mission jim 1888 to eIter
the service Of the Government, he relinouished tothe
American Board all claim on the lands previously
given him by the Chiefs. For q confirmation of
these statements see Dir. Wyllie's Notes, published in
the Friend, of December 18th, 1874.
In the year 1S4S the American Board commenced
a series of measures which eliminated in the rtor-
ganization of the Hawaiian Churches on an irde-
pendent basis in 1863. Their object seems to have
been to close up their missionary work on the Hawai-
ian Islands, and, as soon as possible, 10 render the
Hawaiian Churches self-supporting. The first step
of the Board in Withdrawing from the Islands was to
transfer to the missionaries themselves, on certain
conditions, the houses in which they lived. and other
property connected Herewith, and to give them the
same liberty of holding and acquiring property which
is enjoyed by pastors in England and the United
States. This measure did not originate with the mis-
sionaries here, but was urged upon them by the Pru-
Dental committee in Boston. The cogent reasons
which led to that action at that time are we'll stated
IN the fifth chapter Of DIR. AndersOn's book. Several
years elapsed before the change was effected, and it
was not acceded TO without much reluctance by many
Of the missionaries.
This thing % was not done in a corner but openly
before the whole world. The Government as DR..
Anderson truly says. IS which was favorable to the
measure, to make the transfer more sure, gave the
missionaries a right to the lands in fee simple"
Not merely " the Judd administration as Bishop
Staley would have US believe, but the King and the
old Chiefs who had given these lands, and who knew
best with what expectations they had given them,
cordially favored the plan. His Majesty, in a speech
TO the American missionaries in his Palace,
May 10Th, 1913. expressed his appreciation of the
plan, and his desire to have the missionaries and
their children settle permanently in the Islands as
member of that Cabinet, and who had already pro-
posed to the Government to grant lands for the en-
dowment of a parochial clergy, (see the Friend,
July. lS44,) made no objection whatever to the
On the contrary he supported it, which
he could not have done, had it been g fraudu-
proceeding, perverting to private use, what had
been intended rs n sacred endowment" How the
donors themselves would be astonished to he informed
years afterwards. for the first time, of the
notification" which they are supposed to have
at this disposal of their gifts
But even had the American Board desired at that
time to grant its lands TO the Hawaiian Churches,
there were no existing organizations to which it could
have transferred its title. None of the churches
received charters of incorporation before 1858, ten
years later, and some have not yet been able TO get
heir applications considered. Probably the Bishop
would have been better pleased. if these lands had
transferred TO the Government, and placed I'M
Ter the control of the Board of Education. of which
he is a member. Can it be that the . notification
which he imagines the donors to have felt, is but a
'efection OF his own chagrin, as he considers what
night have been the result, had either this plan or
.lr. Wylie's Parochial scheme been adopted
The next charge which he makes is that subse-
iuently to this change, ten Of the missionaries pur-
:hased 1918 acres at about one-third of the price
TO lay purchasers" This statement was
Violently taken without further examination from a
eport made by a Committee to the Privy Council,
August 18th. 1850, which was first published in the
Poiynesian. May 8th. 1852. However fair may have
the intentions of the Committee this report was
extremely unfair and deceptive from the fact that the
he ommitte stated indeed that the lands granted
Messrs. Hitchcock and Gulick, comprising more
han half of the whole, were "to their knowledge of
nferiOr quality but that the records Of the Interior
)eice did not enable them TO institute a comparison
f the different qualities of land compared. The
ruth is that by far the greater part of the land pur-
based by the ten Missionaries was very poor,
only fit for grazing purposes, and some of il
IN - nom missionaries whom the Committee select
j for comparison, were mostly valuable sugar and
Office lands in Hilo, Kona, Makawao and in Koolau,
'ahu. Let the two lists be fairly examined with
eference to the quality of the land, and the charge
favoritism will vanish into thin air, while the
ratio Of 90 :l45" will be reduced to a ratio of
quality. This was so clearly shown in the P0iyRe-
an of May 9Th and 18th, 1852, elsewhere, that
is surprising to see such n Misrepresentation re.
again at this late day. The report mentioned
bove. goes on to recommend that the missionaries
2 allowed to purchase land to a certain amount so
.ntS cheaper than lay purchasers. But this had
OF been asked for nor desired by the missionaries.
may as well as be stated here that there are per
who are not missionaries, and who have indi-
.iually received more land than all the missionaries
ut together. Let me quote a paragraph on this
lbject from q report of TIE Minister of the Interior,
ohm Young, for the year 1859.
- Much has been said against sales of land to in |
Ividuals Of the American Mission at low prices. But +
o;hing can be more unreasonable and unjust. 1t is /
ell known that these persons are gradually severinp