The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-07-22
THURSDAY
July 22d.
THE LEGISLATURE.

The Legislative Assembly yesterday
had rather cheated term" if we may
use an American phrase, on the con-
sideration of a resolution proposed by
Mr. Thurston, instructing the Minister
of the Interior to Withdraw from sale the
lease OF l $50 acres Of land at Hakalau,
advertised by the late Minister of that
department to be sold to-day. Mr.. Kau-
lukou made an addition to the resolu-
ton, to the effect that the Minister be
instructed to have it surveyed in small
farm sections and offered for settlement
under the Homestead Act.
The point appeared to be that with
the exception of about $50 acres suited
for cane, the rest was timber land, unfit
for cultivation and that the late Minis
ter of the Interior had exercised his dis
erection, and thought that the public in
terests would be best served by the sale
OF the lease of the property as a whole.
In this view, after investigation, His
Exceliency Mr.. Gibson cOncurred; and
he thought the sale should proceed, al
though if the House passed the reso-
luton he would pay respect to such an
expression of opinion.
a good deal of cheap sentiment was
made out of the settlement policy of the
Homestead law, without any reference to
the special merits of this particular case.
His Excellency the Attorney General
recited the facts, and said that the dis
cretion rested with the Minister OF the
Interior under the law, and he would
advise the sale to proceed. Ii the sup
porters of the resolution were In earn
est they should have introduced a
measure early in the session, providing
that all lands reverting to the Govern
ment upon the expiration of the lease,
or by forfeiture through breach OF cove
nant as in this case, should be reserved
for settlement under the Homestead
law. They had not done so. and he
therefore objected to an attempt TO use
the machinery OF the Legislature under
cover of a general law to secure private
ends.
This remark brought up Mr.. Thurston,
who charged the Attorney General with
wearing the collar OF Colonel Spreckels
in the House, and with having acted as
that gentleman's attorney in respect
of this land, claiming for himself the
most perfect liberty and disinterested-
ness The Attorney General replied that
although he had appeared for Colonel
Spreckels in the Courts of California and
in this Kingdom also, he had not ad-
vised him in this transaction, nor was
he his mouthpiece either in or out OF the
House 1t was a simple question of
law, and resolution of the House could
not void a statute. He charged that
the attorney for Mr.. Davies, who was
a member of the House, lodged a
protest but failed to stop the sale,
and now MIR. Thurston moved this reso-
luton for him to effect the same object
through the Legislature. 4Ir. Thurston
denied this, and stated that Mr.. Dole was
the attorney of Davies, and that he himself
had nothing to with it.
This controversy became rather per
sonar, ana OTlSlIldteu III the Iuut dttdCh
by Mr. Thurston upon the Attorney
General. If the resolution was not
intended to serve private ends by
taking advantage OF the Homestead
law, the history of the case, as detailed
in the written statement of the Minister
OF the Interior in reply to an order OF
the House some time ago, clearly laid
the foundation for such an inference
Mr.. Thurston felt aggrieved at this gen
eral comment upon the entire business,
but he might have defended himself
without the coarse attack upon His EX-
cellency Mr. Dare. There appeared to
be misunderstanding upon both sides,
and to allow the gentlemen time for re-
Election the House took a recess at noon.
Upon reassembling, the resolution was
defeated by vote OF nineteen to ten, it
appearing that public interests were be
ing properly guarded, and that the land
in question was not available to any
great extent for settlement.
An important report was presented by
the Finance Committee on the Appro- J