The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1889-01-22

Tho and his sister, Victoria Kama
malu, were minors. We may add
the names of Moses Kaikioewa, an
other brother, who died in IS4S, and
OF W. Z. Lunalilo, also minors.
These were by far the most important
young chiefs of the country. They
were the heirs to existing chiefs
rights in very large and numerous
estates or lands. The rights We're
not in the fathers lands, for they
Were living. The estates which the
fathers received by the AdbcIc and
the awards OF the Land Commission
were greatly inferior to those of their
children, for their children were
much higher in rank through their
mothers Victoria Kamamalu was
the female heir of the great Kaahu
manu-, receiving from her by prefer
ence over her brothers, the largest es-
tate in the Kingdom, and the rank
and dignity of kuhina Nui, almost
equivalent ~ a dual kingship. Lot
kamehameh4 was the heir in like
manner of the Hoapilis, theif estates
and the hereditary goveTnorship OF
the Island of Maui. They would not
reach majority during the time linn
tied Tor filing claims.
The father of the four first men,
toned chiefs, NJ. .Kekuanaoa, Chas.
kanaina, the father of Lunalilo, and
John ii, the guardian of the person Of
Victoria, all then in the prime OF life,
and men of great influence in public
affairs, were members of the Priyy
Council. II was in that body, which
at that time had function of the first
importance in the Government, that
the problem OF placing the land of the
Kingdom upon a basis of separate
and fee simple ownership was most
exhaustively discussed, and therein
the plan of the Mdbele and the Board
of Land Commissioners was accepted
a. the solution. Two Were coupled
together The phraseolOgy Of the re-
lease on the part of Kamehameha
Ill, of his interest in the lands ma
heIed or divided off to the chief is in
this form, taking the MdbeIC of Lot
Kamehameha for the instance:
he ae aku nei au keia mahele.
Ia maikai No Lota Kapuiwa Ka-
mcnamara na alma kakauia maluna.
Ia ae ia'ku hiki Ike lave aku imua
O ka Poe Hoona Kuleana.
Sig. KA1IEHAN1EHA."
Which translated, is:
al hereby assent to this division.
1t is good. To Lot Kapuiwa Kane
hameha are the lands above written.
Ii is hereby allowed to take them
before the Board of Commissioners,
etc"
The same men were also members
OF the Legislative Council which en-
acted the statute containing the sec
ton under discussion.
NJ. Kekuanaoa signs the Mahelc
book for the lands relinquished by
Lot Kamehameha, as father and
guardian of the property of l.. K. ha-
mehameha. He signs in like man
ner for his other childTen-in the ease
of the Mabclc of Victoria, John ii
also signing rs the guardian of her
person. Chas. Kanaina signs as the
father and guardian of the property
Of w. c. LunalilO.
The act amounted to quit claim
deed of their wards. interest in the
lands released.
The guardian had authority to dis
pose of the wards real estate, without
order Of a court in probate. RdHcbd-
Htchu as. H00kdRO, Haw. us.
In my view this was binding act
for all that comes within its scope.
The IIaheIc or Division was designed
10 be for each claimant an entire and
conclusive act. The omission of Il
land from the list which was to be di-
vided would amount to a positive
waiver of claim and the guardian had
the legal right to make it. This APP
pears by the decision cited above and
il is also plainly inferrable from the
nature and necessity of the case.
a division was to be made upon
which should be established titles Of
all the real estate of the Kingdom. |
think it is not tenable proposition
that those who were represented by
guardians had a right TO take diyls-
ion for a part of their claims, and by
omission to present others have a
right to hold them thereafter. To
have carried out the view that it was
optional for a guardian to present a
part. or any of his wards claims to
The Board without the result OF bar
81 ing those not presented, would nave
updefeated the purposes OF the statute
The minors above named, before
the severance of the Governments
half held this kind of unsettled claim
in a very considerable portion of the
territory of the Kingdom, perhaps as
much as one-1ifth in value, and in the
view that their titles would have held
good so much would have remained
undivided and "unquieted " forever
But apart from the Interpretation
given by the historic view OF this
case. it does net appear to be the law
that statutes of limitations should not
be construed strictly and literally,
There is an exception expressed in
the statute in favorOf claimants absent
from the Kingdom, and having no
representatives therein. These eN-
cepted eases must have been exceed
inrlv few. The rule of construction
erDressio uliuS est erclUSjO dltcriUS
then ought to exclude all other eN-
ceptions.
1.-THE Court disclaims all right or
inclination to put on statutes OF limit
ation which are found to be among
the most beneficial to be found IN our
books. any other construction than
their words import Per Living
stone J., in Fisher rs. Hd7eden, Paine
Cir. Co. r. 81.
a. statute of limitations, instead
of being viewed in an unfavorable
light as an unjust and discreditable
a@f.-,-, sbauld have received such