Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1896-04-28
THE LAW ON FENCES.
a Correspondent Argues Against a
Proposed Amen dment.

EDITOR BULLETIN AS the fence
law now stands, it is not an equa-
BILE measure. Neither will the
new amendment correct the evil,
but rather tend to make matters
worse. A private owner is COM
PEELED earring an opposite de-
cision by the fence commissioners)
to pay for half of the fence erected
between his lands and those be-
longing to the government. The
amendment, as set forth in House
Bill No. 81, makes the lessee of
government lands as much of a
beneficiary as the government it.
self, but ameliorates the condition
of the other party in no way what
ever. Hardships, under the con-
ditions of either the old or amend
ed law, are bound to be worked
against both sides in individual
cases.
For instance; suppose a case of
an ahupuaa or comparatively
large tract, containing a number
of kuleanas. The kuleanas may
need five miles of fence to sur
round them. The outside area
may embrace but three or four
hundred acres of grazing, agricul-
tural or other land. The govern
ment leases, under the detestable
long term system, the remaining
government land to a grazier.
Although the land may be of
little value the lessee may compel
each kuleana owner to fence his
place. This is palpably case of
hardship, against the interest of
the small owner.
On the other hand, a private
owner may have large and fer
tile tract which he desires to
fence, and, under the amended
law, could compel a government
lessee to bear half the expense.
Inasmuch as the lessee does not
enjoy the benefit of the increased
valuation of the property he occu-
pies, he would be compelled, in
an extreme case, to pay a heavy
sum, in addition to his lease
money or yearly rental. He
might have taken the ground for
very short time only. In event
OF his having done so, he is
mulcted unjustly.
But, where an occurrence of the
latter kind happened once, one of
the former class would, in all
probability, happen many times
and experience has taught, the
world over, that the private owner
would suffer most; especially the
small owner, who is least able to
bear the burden imposed upon
him.
In his remarks upon the law in
the case, the Attorney General
dilated at great length upon the
possible disadvantages under
which the lessee might be placed,
bat made very few remarks upon
the other side. He repeated many
times the assertion that the private
owner had prime opportunity of
escape from the evils of injustice
in the action of the fence COM
missioners. True and so has the
lessee of government land. The
commissioners have performed
much excellent work, as is borne
out by court decisions, rendered
on cases appealed from them.
There need be little fear but that
they will render as equable de-
cisions in the future. The gov
vernment lessee who has ten,
twenty or forty-year lease should
in equity share the expense of
fence to protect his leasehold, and
in case of short time leases there
need be no fear that lessee
would be compelled by the COM
missioners to spend al exorbitant
amount of money for fences after
the intrinsic value of his lease had
been ascertained. Ii. S.