The Hawaiian gazette., 1899-12-08
HAWAIIAN uAzErTE DECEMBER 8. WEEKLY

HAWAI-
jcct the public lands In Hawaii to a
specicl trust. limiting the revenue from
or proceeds Of the same to the uses Of
the Inhabitants 81 the Hawaiian ISL
| ands fer educational or other public
purposes. This merely restricted the
uses TO which the proceeds NJ such
lands could be put. but did not in any
wise AFFECT the previous provisions Of
this clause, which conferred upon Con-
gress the sole and absolute authority
to provide for the management end
disposition OF these lands. The eject
OF the language quoted Ia % vest In
Congress the exclusive right, ny spc-
cial enactment. to provide for the dis.
position Of public lands In Hawaii. Pos
sibly such would have been the effect
Of the resolution even II this language
had not been inserted. But the Ian
guage having been expressly inserted,
there can be no doubt whatever bit
what the effect Of the resolution Is 10
deprive the local Government Of IIa-
wall Of all authority to dispose Of
these lands In any manner whatever,
except by virtue Of special laws enact
ed by Congress. The fact that Con.
gress has failed up to this time to leg
islate on the subject has not reinvest-
ed the Hawaiian Government with its
former power of disposition. That
power ceased upon the cession. The
lands then became the property Of the
United States. and could be disposed
Of only In accordance with the laws of
Congress-
! referred In my opinion to the Ian
guage Of the Supreme Court OF the
United States in the case Of Harcourt
vs.. Gailliard. IL Wheaton, 523. as ex-
pressive Of the general principle which
governs and controls this subject.
cannot but think that the represen-
tative OF the Hawaiian Government has
failed to appreciate the fact that the
Hawaiian Republic as a separate and
sovereign power ceased to exist when
the resolution of annexation took ef-
feet. II existed as an organized
government only for purposes Of mu-
nicipal legislation within the well-ac-
cepted meaning Of that phrase, and for
such special purposes besides as were
expressed in the resolution, the sale
and disposition of the public lands not
being OF the latter class.
In case involving the question of
a grant made by Spain after the date
OF the treaty ceding territory and prior
to the ratification OF the treaty, the
Supreme Court of the United States.
discussing the effect OF the signature
OF treaty conventions and the date
when they took effect and the power
of the ceding country over public lands
pending ratification. expressly limits
the meaning OF the term municipal
legislation. to that class Of laws that
relate solely to the internal affairs of
the country and the relations of the
people to each other, and declares that
the exercise OF sovereignty by the
ceding country ceases after the sigma
ture Of the treaty except for strictly
municipal purposes, especially for
granting lands" Davis vs.. the Police
Jury Of ConcOrdia. . Howard, 2S0-2S9.)
Similar language Is commonly used
In expressing the legal conditions In a
country conquered by arms. 1t Is COM
monty said In such cases the municipal
laws governing the people in their re-
latiOns with each other remain in force
subject to the will Of the cOnquerer
: but that the power and authority Of the
former sovereign, either to make laws
exercise dominion. or grant rights or
privileges or make conveyance of pub
lie property, are terminated.
, The existing Government of Hawaii
very clearly, by the resolution OF an
neXatiOn. parted with all ownership OF
the public lands of Hawaii. Indeed, 1t
, Is scarcely an adequate expression OF
| the fact to say that 1t parted with the
ownership, because that Government
as a sovereign power, was dissolved
and ceased to exist Its public prop
erty. including lands, became vested
in the United States, and only by the
authority or direction of the United
States could those lands be disposed Of
II there is any authority left in the of,
tcials exercising government in Ha.
wall to grant to purchasers and Others
good title to lands which, by the reso-
luton. were conveyed TO the United
States, 1t must be by reason of some
delegation In the nature Of agency, and
that delegation must be found in the
resolution of annexation, because there
had been no other legislation by Con-
gress on this subject. But. as l have
previously decided, and as have here
In pointed out, no such authority is
contained in the resolution. but the
reasonable and natural construction OF
its language Is opposed to such con-
tention. The case may be summed up
by the statement that whatever right.
title, interest, or property the Repub-
lie of Hawaii had in public lands at the
time the resolution of annexation took
effect were transferred thereby to the
United States and thenceforth the off,
Gals OF the Hawaiian Republic were
without any power whatever to convey
by any kind OF grant or concession the
legal or equitable title of the United
States.
Second. II is suggested that the
Executive order of September IL, 1899.
should be modified so as not TO apply
to sales or agreements for the sale of
public lands made between the date Of