The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-01-22

when it recites that all claims TO
land as against the HolUdiidn Cor
eyTn1eRt" must be presented, etc. A
is forcibly said on page SO of The
Principles" "claims for land ever
by purchase or gift from the King
must be presented to the Commission
for adjudication.n "Such ownership
must be proved or it cannot be &C.
| knowledged, for the King represent
ing the Government, having formerly
been the sole owner of all the soil, he
must be considered to be so still un-
less proof be rendered to the contrary
and even possession OF eUer so long
standing cannot be pToof,n etc. 'The
Land Commissioners, by virtue Of
their appointment from the King,
had conferred upon them all his pri-
vate and public power over the cor
porate property in lands claimed by
private parties, which in the nature
of things he can delegate" Up. 81 OF
Principles).
Certainly the Land Commission
was not authorized to hear lawsuits
between private individuals, as re-
CARDS the ownership of land. There
|
risdiction. 1t was only when there
was a counter claimant intervening,
that the Land Commission was called
upon TO decide which had the best
claim as against the State. In such
ease each party had to present his
claim against the King OF Govern
ment, as the source of all title. 1t
has been uniformly held, sustaining
this theory, that where two awards
of the Land Commission cover the
same territory, the earlier award pre-
walls.
1t must be remembered that these
Principles" however much they
may be criticised at the present day,
were statutory law, having been
adopted by the Legislative Council,
consisting of the Mobiles and Repre-
sentatives, Oh the 26th October, 1916,
and "all claims for landed property
shall be tested by those principles
and according to them be confirmed
or rejected" (Stats. of 1916, p. 81.
a notice was published by the Com
mission "to all claimants of lands i'll
the Hawaiian Islands," dated 18th
February, 1916, viz: "All persons
are required to file with the Board,
by depositing with its Secretary spec
ifications of their claims TO land, and
to adduce the evidence upon which
they claim title to any land in the
Hawaiian Islands before the eXpira-
ton of two years from this date, or in
default of so doing they will after
that time be forever barred of ali
right to recover the same in the courts
of justice"
Paragraph seven, on p. 80, closes the
Principles with the declaration, as a
warning to all claimants OF land, that
" the titles of all LANDS, whether right
fully or Wrongfully claimed, either
by natives or foreigners, in the entire
Kingdom, which shall not have been
presented to this Board for adjudica-
ton, confirmation or rejection, on or
before the 14th day of February, 1S4S,
are declared to belong to this Govern
ment by Section Sof the Article Great
ing this Board. Parties who thus
neglect to present their claims, do so
in defiance of law, and cannot COM
plain Of the effect of their disobedi-
cnce."
This construction put upon the
statute-that failure to present Il
claim within the prescribed time alb
solutely barred the claimant-by the
Legislative power of the Kingdom,
the King and the Mobiles and Repre-
and uniformly concurred
in and acted upon by successive Gov
under many reigns follow |
ing, and, to this day, undisturbed by |
any judicial decisions, we are not at |
liberty to disregard.
What, then, was the title or claim |
to this land which Lot kamehameha !
had at the institution of the Land |
Commission? 1t was Il right to present |
q claim for this land to the Land Com !
and which claim if sustained |
by evidence, would have entitled him
to an award therefor, or to a royal
patent, signed by the King, upon his
the Government share
award and patent being
subject to the rights of tenants, if any
here were.
1t is claimed that a construction of
Section s of the Act of 1915, which
would deprive Lot Kamehameha of
his land of which he then had pos
session, would conflict with the. pro-
rision of the Constitution of 1S4O-Or
Declaration of Right, viz: Protec-
ion is hereby secured to the persons
# all the people, together with their
ands, their building lots and all their
while they conform to the
avs of the Kingdom, and nothing
whatever shall be taken from any in
iyidual except by express provision
f the laws"
We interpret this to mean that
whatever rights to land the chiefs and
eOple had, were to be protected.
'ossession of land was not to be dis
Irbed. The landlords were not to
ispossess their tenants without cause,
or should the King dispossess his
hiefs. See Laws of 1889 and 1910,
,und in Old Laws p. 80.
The statute therefore deprived Lot +
ION his failure to pre- t
ent his claim to the Commission of
hat? Not of this land, for he had i
o title to it, but only OF his right to |
resent a claim for it, which was all |
ne interest he had. t
This interest or right the DeclaTa- c
on of Rights secured to him. 1
Nothing should be taken from him !
ithout express provision of the
VS." And in 1915 "the express C
revision of the lawr warned him i
lat to secure his title to this land he 5
lust present his claim to it before }
lie Commission within the time linn Il
ed We fail to see how the letter or Il
brit of the Constitution of 1910 is o
Olated by the Act of 1S45, constitute il