The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-08-24
THE BIG SUIT.
Testimony of Col. George W.
Macfarlane, Continued.

Q. What do you mean by closing
down on you? A. Well, / under
stood that they needed money, be-
lieve they had some losses in charters
and they claimed that they needed
money, and they returned my drafts
one mail for 100000, abont, and took
think about $65, 900 or $4,000 worth
of sugar. They returned my drafts
unpaid to Bishop Il Co. and they
have not been paid to this day. All
the sugar was taken that the drafts
we're drawn against. then had to
transfer all my plantations to them;
within the month l transferred all
my plantations and the plantation
debts. After the plantations clean
up / suppose l owed them a couple
of hundred thousand dollars, which
continued for some years, up to 1886
or 1887. 1t was cancelled then after
l had turned over everything, from
which time | have owed them moth
ing unless it was small account,
none of the original account. After
seeing Mr.. Spreckels in 1883 or 1884,
he came down here to Honolulu, but
was in that position, and under
stood from Mr.. Cornwell and my
brother Henry, and Mr.. Parker and
some others, that he was likely to
throw me into bankruptcy if | pressed
the thing any further, and just at
that time 1 wouldn't move. In fact
L may state right here that Mr.. Corn
well, who must have had some dis
cussion more or less with him on the
subject, came in one Saturday night
and told me that Mr.. Spreckels was
going to close my doors on Monday
morning, and sent word back by MIR.
Cornwell Il don't know if it was ever
told) that l defied him to close my
doors, and it was never done. The
next thing that was done with regard
to this division was in 1887, when Mr..
John ID. Spreckels came down here
and Mr.. Cornwell came down to see
me in reference to making a further
push for a settlement. Owing to
hostile action of Mr.. John Spreckels
in business matters between us, l
didn't approach him at all
There was a great deal of
feeling existing between us and
I sent Billy Cornwell and asked him
to try and put the proposition before
John Spreckels, which resulted in
that letter that was written to Mr.
John Spreckels by Mr. Cornwell,
which was read this morning, as fol-
lows:
Mr.. JOHN d. SPRECKELs, Honolulu,
DEAR lSIR: As our conversation was
not as much as it might have been about
the settlement of the property known as
the "Waikapu Common" l would sug
gest that the land that has been used by
the "Hawaiian Coml. and Sugar Co."
and by the "Waikapu Sugar Co" for the
last few years, be assessed at fair rent
al per acre, and the amount pooled and
then divided.
The Hawaiian Coml. and Sugar Co. 4"
can reserve what number of acres of cane
land they wish, and the "Waikapu Sugar
Co." will do likewise, each paying an
assessed or agreed upon sum per acre for
what they retain, and the balance OF the
land can then be divided, leased or sold,
as may be agreed upon.
This, think, would be fair way of
dividing, but any proposition from you
or the Company would be considered by
me.
Yours truly,
(Signed) VIM. IL. CoRNwELL.
That letter was written in 1887, tn 9
day before Mr.. Spreckels left for San
Francisco. 1 partly dictated the let
ter to Mr.. Cornwell, and asked him
to submit it to John Spreckels. Mr..
Cornwell told me that he had carried
out what l had suggested, to Mr..
John Spreckels, which he would take
to San Francisco and submit to his
father, and he promised to write
down by the next mail or two Mr.
Claus Spreckels' answer. He got a
reply from Mr.. John Spreckels by
the following steamer which stated
that MIR. John Spreckels had not had
an opportunity to show the PROPOSE
ton to his father, but that he hoped
to very shortly and would next mail
send down his fathers reply to the
proposition, as to how he viewed it.
Mr.. Cornwell tells me he never re-
ceived anything after that, and
have never heard anything further
concerning that subject. My rela-
tions were such then that / could
neither approach Mr.. Claus Spree
kels or John Spreckels; we were not
on speaking terms. The loan fight
came up about that time, and the re-
lations were very strained. I went
to San Francisco on the same steamer
with Mr.. Spreckels in 1886, but did
not speak to him on the way. [ then
consulted Mr.. Bishop and Mr.. Da-
mon, and talked about bringing suit,
and Mr. Bishop urged me to try once
more, in consequence of which
made another effort to bring about
an amicable settlement by appoint
ing arbitrators. When MIR. Spreckels
came down here, went to him and
asked if he would agree to appoint
arbitrators on this matter; at first he
didn't seem inclined to, but when I
suggested three or four or five names
he finally consented, and we agreed
upon Mr.. Cartwright and Mr..
Bishop. The question that 1 sug-
gested to Mr.. Spreckels for arbitra-
ton was a settlement of the COM
mons; we were to lay the whole
matter of dispute before these gen
tlemen and ask them to arbitrate
as to what was fair division, or in
what way we could settle for the
occupation of the land by the Ha-
waiian Commercial Co. There was
nothing else in controversy between
ia bpsidal thn division of tho 1opd