The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-12-07

! ject the public lands in Hawai-: to
SpeclGi trust. limiting the revenue from
] or proceeds of the same 10 tna uses a.
TIE inhabitants Of the Hawaiian Isl
ands TCr educational or other nuh1f,
purposes. This merely restricted rms
, uses 70 which the proceeds If sr,rr
lands coud be put, but did not in any
wise allect the previous provisions =:
th.S cause which conferred upon Con-
gfess the sole and absolute authority
10 provide tor the mana cement end
disposition OF these lands. The ffeer
q the language quoted is . vcs- IN
Congress the exclusive right. hv sno-
elal enactment, TO provide for ne dis
position or public lands in Hawaii. Pos
slbly such would have been the effect
OF the resolution even III this language
had not been inserted. But the Ian
Iguage having been expressly inserted.
there can be no doubt whatever but
what the effect of the resolution : 10
deprive the local Government OF Ia
Waii 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 Hhat
| power ceased upon the cession. The
lands then became the property of thQ
United States, and could be disposed
OF only in accordance with the laws Of
Congress-
| | referred in my opinion TO the Ian
| gu2ge OF the Supreme Court of the
United States in the case of Harcourt
VS.. Gallliard, i Wheaton, 523, as ex-
pfesslVe OF the general principle which
governs and controls this subject
cannot but think that the represent
tative Of the Hawaiian Government has
failed 10 appreciate the fact that the
Hawaiian Republic as a separate and
sovereign power ceased to exist when
the resolution of annexation took eff
feet. 1t 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 a case involving the question of
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
a = a fn 40 c1a Of rhaf
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
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, it |
IS scarcely an adequate expression Of
the fact to say that it parted with the |
ownership, because that Government, |
as a sovereign power, was dissolved |
and ceased to exist. It's 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. |
If there is any authority left in the Of
ficials 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, it 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 [ 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 a 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 It is suggested that the
Executive order of September II, 1899, |
should be modified so as not to apply |
to sales or agreements for the sale OF
public lands made between the date OF
the approval of the resolution and the |
18th day of August, 1898, which was
the date on which the ceremonies took
place at Honolulu evidencing the for