Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1899-10-31
WAIALUA CASE DISCUSSED.
Continued from Page 1.

government landp Would the
Minister who sold the land be
personally liable in damage, in
case he sold land illegally ? The
purchaser would have the right to
recover the amount he paid
and possibly interest on
the same but that would be all.
Would it be held that void sale
under order of tho court would
make the Judge who sanctioned it,
or the persons conducting the sale
liable beyond the return of the
purchase pricep l apprehend
that very few sales would be au-
thorized or made il there were any
such liability. So we can rendily
see that it is very uncertain if the
excessive subscribers have any
remedy, and the great bugaboo no
longer inspires US with fear.
But we are confronted with the
proposition that it would be
policy for the stockholders to
settle this matter. This is an
argument, or rather an absence Of
argument which it is hard to meet
and l confess my lack of recourses
to find any suitable answer to it.
l am in about the same position
that l should be in if met by a
robber with bag of gold in my
possession. He puts a pistol to
my head and Gays, "Give me that
money" l say, "But you have
no right to it, it is mine not
yours" He replies, IF you don't
give it to me l will blow the top of
your head off" l am immediate
ly reminded that it is policy to
give it aud no one would hardly
deny that l acted wisely. Such
argument seems hardly to Apply
in this case as no one would have
the audacity to charge the gentle
men at the back of this movement
with an attempt to violently de-
prive me Of my property. But l
deny that the proposed action is
even expedient. With a magnam-
ity which is almost overpoweripg,
the representative Of the San
Francisco subscribers sag that be
bows to the wisdom of the gentle
men who favor the proposed &C.
ton. He does not wish to put
anything 10 the way of the best
interest Of the company. Bat in
the next breath he says if the
company should desire % borrow
money to tide over its necessities
pending the decision of the case
he will enjoin such action. He
refuses to pay his assessor ents
unless his stock is delivered,
and thereby to that extent
deprives the company of the
money provided for its
expenses, which by the way would
in any event be insufficient for the
needs of the company, and it will
be obliged to raise more money
either by increasing the capital
stock, to be distributed among the
stool holders or by borrowing. l
do not know anything about the
merits of Their claim to 81 100000
of stock butif it is theirs, want
them to have it, and il seems to
me that il they possess the mag
nanimity they profess they would
say, while we will not pay our as
sessments, under the circum-
stances, we shall be glad il you
borrow at the expense of all the
stock holders the money which is
due on the 100000, until the dis.
pute is settled. 1t will be observed
that these delinquent stock hold.
ers are getting the benefit of all
the interest on their delinquent
assessments, while they only will
be obliged to pay one-third of the
interest, on any money borrowed,
the other stock holders bearing
two thirds. Professions of good
faith are necessarily looked upon
with suspicion made under such
circumstances. But l deny abso
lutely that the quarrel as to the
ownership of this l-3 of the stock
can prevent the company, from
pursuing its Legitimate business.
The Co. has the right to borrow
money if the exigencies require it
and it rather savors of bravado for
the minority to say they will pre-
vent it. Is it not preposterous
proposition to say that two per-
sons, claiming each the same
share of stock can stop the bust
ness of the company until their