The Hawaiian gazette., 1877-05-23

do not place much importance upon this as
it was but an Index compiled in the Interior
Ulhce and Is not conclusive to title but il has
value as showing the views of those in Office at
the time. | find also by reference to the Ma.
belle Book that the Ills of "Kawailoa" and "Wui-
kalua' were released to the King by Princess
v Kamamalu, 81 January. lS49 "Kahalekau.
villa" by j. A. Kauwa IL Feb, lS48. X eaahala, u
by Chas. Kanaiua, % January, 1913; "Kaluapu-
hi" by Kahonu, 2 Feb, l649 !" Halekou" by Ka-
pu A Feb, 1913; "KanohohuIuiwi' by PnhaIa-
hua, Feb g. l849, and "Kuou," by Kahoohano-
hano 10 Feb. l646
From all this draw the following differences
That the Iliainas in question were at the time of
the mahele known aud treated as distinct from
the Ahupuae. They had had different owners
or Konohikis under the King, and these Ills, by
virtue OF the maheles of the konohikis, who re-
| leased their rights in them to the King, and by
virtue of the Kings deeds OF the 9th of March
1913, in which the private lands of the King
were separated from those of the Government
these Ills thus became absolutely the Kings
subject to the rights of tenants (Kuleana men
whose titles we're beng settled by the Land
| Commission.
The Mahele Book shows that the King re.
served LANDS" of all denominations. not Ahu-
puaas merely. but "Iainas' WE'LL Iliainas
| WERE Gealeu US separate run tHb AOupudd IN
one case. "Wauku" Maui, all the Ills were
"maheled" to different Konohikis and only the
Ahupuaa remained to the King.
| In the Ahupuaas of "KaiIua" and :" Kaneohe, Z"
numbers Of Ills were "mahaled" or released to
various Chiefs and Konohikis by the usual form
OF Mahee Certificate which directed the parties
TO 1.-The Land Commission for formal award OF
the same"
Now although these maheles were executed
day after day until the work was completed. it
was because it was too great Task 10 be oil
completed in one day, and they might well have
all been dated on one and the same day.-It was
all one act.-None of the maheles by the King
to any Chief could claim by virtue OF its earlier
date any priority or superiority of title over the
mahele by any Chief to the King.
The whole work was one scheme /; one part
was eontemporaneous with every other part.
The mahele executed by the King to Queen
Kalama of the Ahupuaas of Kailua and Kane
| ohe. surrendered these lands TO her the vari-
Gus maheles executed by the Princess Kamama-
| u, Chas kanaina, and others. OF the llainas in
question released oil their rights 10 them 10 the
King, who already held the superior title 10
| them as sovereign.
cannot see therefore. how. in any manner,
tue deed OF the King of March 9th. l648 formal
ly reservigg there Iliainas to himself which we
have seen was unnecessary or the Act of June
9Th. 1881 which was merely con6rmatory) af-
fected his title to those Ills in the least. How
then could these deeds or the Act Of the Legs
ature referred to. be construed to revoke or dis
affirm the mahele Of the Ahupuaas of Kailua or
Kaneohe to Queen KaIama The Kings deed
OF March 9Th, 1913. did not affect these Ahu-
puaas IN the least.-it had no reference to them,
any more than If the Iliaiuas reserved were stu
ated in other Ahupuaas than these,-ln other