The Hawaiian gazette., 1877-05-23

districts than Koolaupoko, or 90 other Islands
than Oahu
have said there were other Illainas in these
Ahupuaas Of Kailua and Kaneohe which were
'maheled' to various Chiefs and Claimants.
They took these maheles to the Land Commits
sion and received their awards for them. II the
mahee of the King OF the Ahupuaas OF Kailna
and Kaneohe swept of and included 10 them the
Kings lllainas which were within the limits Of
these Ahupuaas, the same reasoning would
sweep off, in The grant of the Ahupuaas, those
other lliainas. also within the limits of these
Ahupuaas, which were "maheled" TO those other
| Chiefs
The subsequent awards Of the Land Commits
sion Tor the lainas Of the other chiefs would
make their case no stronger against the effect
OF the maheie OF The Ahupuaa To the Queen.
The King could not perfect his already
perfect title 10 his own lliainss. No one woald
seriously contend that the King was obliged 10
go to the Land Commission for Awards or Pa
i tents Of his lands even for Communication
| purposes. when we bear in mind that he had sur
rendered to the Government by far the greater
| proportion of the lands that remained his
which exlingushed completely the Government
right 10 communication in what was lett.
One perfect title is good as any other per-
| feet title.
The Kings title to the lliainas which are sub
| ject Of this suit. was perfect. So were also the
title Of thuse Chiefs who bud llainas IN the
same Ahupnaas 'inaheed" to them, perfect
far as the King was concerned They had. Of
course, to follow the maheIe mp with 40 award
and were entitled 10 Royal. Patents on paying
the Government Communication.
When | say That both these classes OF titles
are perfect" | must always be understood as
qualifying this by the statement that these ma
hees and subsequent awards were subject TO the
rights of native tenants. These tenants on tux
ing out their Kuleanas. paid no Communication to
the Government. lor the holder Of The award Of
The Ahupuaa or LLAMA out OF which they were
taken, settled for the whole Government Com
mutation. Ia the towns of Honolulu Lahaina,
and Hilo the awards of-Kuleuuas for Houselots
were subject to communication, there being no
superior Lord or Chief over them whose Ahu-
puha or Iii they were included in and whose
Communication covered theirs. See principles
adopted by the Land Commission page 81, and
Keelikolani vs. Robinson 2 Hawaiian K. SAT
also Kanaina VS.. Long Haw.-
here quote FROM Keeikolani vs.. Robinson,
as follows: Under the general rule that the
party holding an Award or Patent for IN Ahu-
puaa ls the owner Of all the land embraced with
in its boundaries. except such portions of it as
have been awarded by the Land Commission to
other persons, it is contended by Counsel for the
| Respondent that unless the Complainant hns
| shown that "Pakaka" was awarded by the Land
Commission to Lelei0hoku or Pit Kinan. the
fee of that lot became vested 10 the Queen
! Dowager US u part of Waikahaluu and that in
consequence she, and not the Complainant is
now the owner OF the right formerly possessed
by Kalaimoku and Leeiohoku. Tin our
opinion upon the Grant of Pakaka to Kalaimo-
ku by Kaahumanu, which was the same as a
] Urnu nv for IN
part of Wakahalulu. as held by the Konohiki.
| apply this reasoning 10 the case before me 10
this way:
Upon the execution of the releases by Prin.
cess Kamamalu. CGas. Kanaina and the others
(by their maheles) of their interests in the lii
aInas in question. They ceased forever to form
part Of the Ahupuaas US held by the Konohik"
And our case Is even stronger, for the grant Of
Pakaka by KaahumaDu TO Kdlaimoku initiated
his tite--the maheles OF Princess Kamamalu
and the Others but released tn the King an out
stunding claim in lands in which he already held
title sovereign.
do not deem it necessary to discuss the ques-
lion here, whether the Land Commission had
the legal authority TO put into the Land Awards
issued by them, the condition OF forfeiture If the
Government Communication was not settled with
IN thirty years, for We are considering the Kings
title to the lliainas in question. He had dele
gated portion of his authority. TO the land
Commission to settle his rights the Chief EX-
ecutive OF the Government 10 other laLds with
the Claimants. but he did not 90 10 the Commits
sion for an adjudication of his own titles in what
remained OF his avn lands. after surrendering
literally to his Chiefs, KonohIks and Govern
ment. No one wsuld seriously contend that the
King should have procured awards of his own
lands IRON the Land Commission or signed Roy
al Patents to himself for them.
think that erroneous opinions have some-
times as to what "Ahupuaas't and Ills"
An Ahupuaa has been called the unit" of
land in this country but it is by no means a
measure OF area, for Ahupuais vary exceedingly
as TO size. Many Ahupuaas are divided iH,o
lliS-other Ahupuaas have no Ills in them, as
for instance Kualoa and Waimanao on this Is
land.
There are two kinds OF Ills. One the Iii of
the Ahupuaa mere subdivision of the Ahu
puaa for the convenience of the Chief holding
| the Ahupuaa,-as for Instance the Ills OF Lihue
and Waimanalo in the Ahupuaa of Honouui
The KOnUhikis of such lainas as these brought
their revenues to the Chief holding the Ahu-
puaa
The other class we're the "Ili Kupono" (short-
ened into Iii Ku.") These were independent
OF the Ahupuaa, nor did they pay general tribute
to it.
Gus, absorbing the larger part of the Ahupuaa.
well known case is the Ahupuaa Of Wailnea"
Hawaii, OF which the Ills of "Waikoloa" aud
"Puukapu" form about nine tenths.
There some Ills that do not seem to be in
any Ahupnaa-as for instance the Ills mentioned
in pages 400 and 40l OF the Civil Code, and set
apart as Fort Lands" for the support Of the
soldiers. They are mentioned as Ills of Horo-
lulu" and yet there is no Ahupuaa of Homo
Lulu which is bat name for the locality-and
! believe there are no lands known as the Ahu.
puaas of Manoa. Makki, Kapalama, or Waikiki,
though there are numerous Ills and Kneanas
awarded under these names, which / understand
to be names of localities. 1t may be however
that as all the territory Of these lands was ab.
sorbed by the Ills and the Kueanas. there was
nothing left to be applied for or granted.
The Ills in question in this suit are not dis
tinctly named 'lll Kuponos." this name not be-
ing preserved in the mahele but all the Ills that
were recognized and treated in the mahele and
awarded by the Commission were undoubtedly
Iii Kuponos." This name was dropped, for
when separated from the Ahupuaa by mahele and