The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-08-17

lhalnlng portion Of the common land
outside of their fence has never been
lnterfered with by the Hawaiian
commercial q Sugar Company. We
nave planted some of the land be-
SIDES pasturing cattle. [ had a con-
Versation with j. d. Spreckels with
regard to d partition of the land, and
always told him that l thought the
natural division of this property
would be right straight through the
sand hills, and if he held an excess
of acreage over and above what we
did, why, of course, he would be
willing to pay for it, and of course
that could be decided in some wav
outside Of the Courts by arbitration.
L always supposed that would be the
natural boundary or division line,
and II we had more property, or vice
versa, that could be found by sur
vey. The reason why we didn't
plant any more Of the common land
was because we were limited to our
water supply. We took the Waikapu
water, but had no other water. We
had no other means of getting water.
We had tried to get a flowing arte-
sian well, and then tried at the
beach by digging down there to get
surface water. We found abundance
OF water there, but had to abandon
it. The land is not capable of pro-
dacing crops without water, and it
has no water on it; it is kula land
with no water rights. Our relations
with the Hawaiian Commercial &
Sugar Company have been very
amicable, we have never had any
trouble. | never asked the Hawaii
an Commercial Company for any
waterto my knowledge. After en-
closing this piece of $50 acres or
Whereabouts [ planted algaroba trees,
and we have been using that for fire
wood right straight along, for the
use of the plantation; / never sold
any of it. [ think 1 fenced that $50
acres in 1885 or 1886. 1t is as far
back as 1856 I am pretty positive.
The Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar
Company could have conducted their
water on to the Waikapu side Of the
commons and taken in between six
ard eight hundred acres, according
to the survey of Mr. Morrison, by
constructing bitches and tressels.
CROSS EXAMINATION.
In answer to Mr. Thurston). The
fifteen siXteenths of the plantation
which bought from father included
fifteen-sixteenths of half interest in
the Waikapu commons. My father
retained the one sixteenth either
three or four years after. After the
incorporation Mr.. Macfarlane and [
transferred our interests to the Com
pany. The incorporation was April
1882 or 1883 l think. I do not own
any shares in the Company now; I
sold them to Col. Spreckels in 1889.
Mr.. Macfarlune and bought the in
terest in the Waikapu Company to-
gether. He still retains half inter
est in the Waikapu Company 1 sup
pose. When we first bought from
father, Green, Macfarlane q Co. were
the agents, afterwards G. w. Mac
farlane q Co. / don't remember
when the change was made from
Green, Macfarlane & Co. to G.. W.
Macfarlane & Co.; I think probably
in 1880 or 1881, along there; prob
ably 1879, and Mr.. Macfarlane was
the agent until 1884 think, when Is
was transferred over to w. &. Irwin
& Co. When Macfarlane was agent
of the plantation he attended to the
financial part of the business and I
attended to the plantation.
n priO1, 70 x0t7T. ca1lirCr o11I - ElNl
Spreckels, did you and Mr.. Maefar-
lane make any attempt to procure
division of the Waikapu Commons
with Mr.. Spreckels or anybody else?
A. Yes, sir; in 1882 we went up
there to have a division made of the
Commons, we were all together, I
think we were all willing to go up
together. In 1887 l spoke to John
D. and at the same time I wrote him
a letter that you have had in Court
this morning, that we thought we
ought to have division Of the prop
9rty. Prior to the time when we
went up there in 1882, no efforts
were made towards q division to my
knowledge. Mr.. Macfarlane has told
me from time to time of converse
tons he has had with Col. Spreckels
about the necessity of making a
division Of the property, that is since
1882. The commons, according to the
survey, contain about 12,000,, and
we went up there in 1882 with the
intention of dividing it. OF course
don't know what their intentions
were; Of course it was not brought
out at the meeting or at the time we
were going around, but my idea was
at that time to run the line through
the sand hills and to have asked them
to pay us for any amount of acreage
in excess that they might have on
their side over what we had on
our side, and so come to a settle
ment. l don't think there was any
proposition made with reference to
payment of rent by them for the
area occupied in 1882; in 1887 was
the first that know of proposition
Of that kind. Between 1882 and 1887
nothing was done or said by me con
corning a division or settlement.
never gave up my intention of hav-
ing a division of the commons. In
large property like that
thought it was necessary to have
it divided. l don't know why il
went along from 1882 to 1885
without settlement being made, ]
oo,,I1 NOT toll Won Uhu II was