The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1873-12-27
Letter from the Rev. c. G. Williamson.

~~~CF- 49, -N -"f"FA@A - H@NN
the heading Notes of the Month. occurs
south Koua, UswaI-Thc ai of the :. z. c.
r. e. the mission IN this district i most opportunc.
The church hcrc and the land On which IL stands. a
lot Of two acres. can uow become the property Of the
church. Strange As it may appear here was a
church belonging % the mission standing en- land
which had never been conveyed 70 the boly which
represents IT, Stranger still. there was a house
standing upon the land. belonging 70 another party,
20 whom the whole Of the gwo acrCs had been leased
for twenty years, saving only 4 right q road 70 the
church. What was the consequence When Mr..
Davis went % kona, he found the grass nearly up 10
the windows Of the church, and the land overrun
with guaya bushes. But he could neither cut the
grass. nor clear out the bushes without permission Of
the holder Of the lease. Worse still, no iuterment
could take place without leave from the same party.
The only thing that could be done 90 rescue the
church property from such cncumbrance was 10 pur-
chase the house, and MI the rights in the land con-
veyed 10 the owner by the lease
Now, if / were assured that this was not from the
Editors pen | should call il nonsense, and then dis
miss the matter from mind. As it is | cannot but
think (and indeed with pain and gric0 that the
paragraph just quoted is a deliberate and outrage
GUS insult sanctioned by, if not emanating from, the
Reverend Editor himself, to one considered 70 be far
enough away TO make it safe for the giver of the in
suit.
1 have only one thing to 10, and that is publicly
to defend myself, ana rs the - Monthly Messenger"
is not a corresponding medium L ask for an entrance
to the columns of the COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER.
For it IS pretty generally known that the Kona
mission was established by me, and that previous 10
Mr.. Davis arrival l had the management and con-
troll of the Kona property which directly or Indirect
ly belonged to the Reformed Catholic Church"
The imputation of mismanagement, if nothing
worse is intended, seems therefore a personal attack
upon my reputation.
viii state the matter as fairly, and with as little
warmth of feeling and speech, as l possibly can, and
the public may judge for themselves.
\ few historical facts are first necessary.
In 1867 L erected n church and house on a plot Of
land called Onouli, at that time part Of the property
Of the adjoining sugar plantation. The money for
the church was provided by some Of my personal
friends in England, aided by some ofiertories taken
in a few churches in which | preached just before
leaving England. The house was an old store which
L had purchased at auction, and removed from where
it originally stood to n position near the church,
where it was reconstructed rs a dwelling house for
myself. l may add that the greater proportion OF
the heavy carpenters work, and nearly all the paint
ing was done with my own hands. The expense of
the house was consequently only about two hundred
dollars above the price paid at auction for the wooden
frame, and this | betrayed out Of my own income.
l was prepared to have paid the auction price also,
viz, $3.50; but the Synod of the Reformed Catholic
Church in consideration of the small income | was
receiving, and the heavy expense to which | was
subjected for furnishing my house, made me a grant
of the same. This is recorded in the Treasurer's
book. The house was therefore my own personal
property. The church, in view of the fact that the
money with which it was built had been subscribed
for the purpose, was held in trust by me for the
Episcopal Church Congregation.
When the buildings were completed, l asked the
owner of the land that had been awarded as q site
to give n deed of the same to the 'Synod of the
Reformed Catholic Church. If this had been done
all the property, viz, the church and house, would
have gone with it. The owner however would not
do so; but wished me to accept the land as an indi-
vidual gift. This / would not do at that time. When
l was leaving KOna in 1869, | again sought n deed
of the land, and this time when / found | could not
do otherwise l accepted the land as a personal gift.
On my return to the islands in 1870, l found an
opportunity of disposing Of the house, and accord
ingly did so, giving the purchaser n lease of the
land for a period not exceeding twenty years, reserv-
ing a right of road to and from the church.
When Bishop Willis arrived in July, 1872, l gave
him a personal deed of the Kona property, at the
same time stating all and more than | have here
stated moreover in the deed allusion was made to
the lease, and the folio. and page in which it was re-
corded, given. |
With these few historical facts in mind, you are
prepared to see if my comments upon the above
quoted paragraph from the Hawaiian Church Month
ly Messenger are the cry of petulance, or the out
burst of honest Indignation. |
l will take the periods Of the paragraph one
by one.
First, "The church here and the land on which it
stands can now become the property of the church,
IhAo 10 hAAtiSh III Ohg3 ~ jus oiC 1NhA biANA Il |
gave to Bishop Willis 4 deed of gift which made him
sole owner Of the church, and the land on which it
stands. Is it honest? Does not the inference re-
main that the aid of the S. i. G.. X. released the
church building from the hands Of some one who
had forcible possession of it to the injury Of the
Bishops work in the diocese of Honolulu? Second,
I" Strange as it may appear here was a church be-
longing to the mission standing on land which had
never been conveyed to the body which represents
it." This is very ambiguous. Does the writer mean
to reiterate the former period, and declare again that
the land, on which the church belonging to the mis-
sion was standing, was not previous to the 5. 7. c.
X. grant the property Of the Bishop of Honolulu
If so, facts are lost sight Of But if the intention of
the writer is to show that the Bishop is not the body
which represents the mission, he need not have gone
SO far away from home to discover "strange"
things; for in Honolulu itself n school belonging to
the mission called Iolani College stands on land
which has never been conveyed to the body which
represents it, viz, (s l should understand) the
Church Synod. Third, stranger still, there was n
house standing upon the land belonging to another
party This is certainly a remarkable circun-
stance worthy Of prominent notice; although it
might have been supposed that an educated gentle
man would have been aware that this fact which is
IS stranger still" is about as common as bread.
Why here in London there is an immense quantity
Of church land on which houses belonging to other
parties are standing, and by the income arising from
leased church land many English Wears and Rectors
are supported. What could the writer be thinking
about to make such an absurd exclamation Of aston
as if the leasing Of church land was an I'M
heard of monstrosity?
'What was the consequence? ?" Dreadful indeed
will read the next period "When Mr.. Davis
went to Kona, he found the grass nearly up to the
of the church, and the land overrun with
guaya bushes Is the writer really serious in con-
sidering it an awful calamity to have long grass in
Kona during the wet season. God sends rain upon
church land, and makes the grass grow there as well
as elsewhere in Kona. And as for guava bushes, all
the land in the neighborhOod abounds with them,
it will take more money than ever had to
throw away to clear the land. But joking apart, It
is surprising to think that any one should seriously
make such a puerile statement that because a
church belonging to the mission was standing on
land which had never been conveyed to the body
which represents it, and q because there was q
house standing upon the land, belonging to another
party, to whom the whole Of the two acres had been