The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-12-13
HAS
A PROBLEM
Value of
Pearl Harbor
Land.
JUDGE ESTEE'S
INSTRUCTIONS
An Agreement Hardly Likely to
Be Reached Before
Today.

shortly before 2 y tAOCh SSStcA 10y III
ernoon the jury in the case Of the United
States VS.. Bernice Bishop Estate was tn
structed by Judge Estee and retired IN
charge of Marshal Hendry to consider
a verdict.
Federal Court convened at 9 o'clock
and Mr.. Kinney proceeded Immediately
upon his argument. He freely admitted
the necessity for the Pearl Harbor naval
station. and pointed out it's advantages
to Hawaii even more enthusiastically
than did Mr.. Dunno. He dwelt upon the
great amount OF shipping likely soon to
pass through the North Pacific and said
that this Would be the halfway point
for all of it. Commerce here was only
beginning to grow, continued Mr.. Kin
ney,and the ocean would soon be covered
with ships. which would make their rem
devious here, as this was on the highway
to the trade of the Orient. The United
States, he hoped, would dominate his
commerce., and the American flag fly
from nearly all the vessels. On this ae-
count the naval station was a necessity,
as an outpost for Quitting vessels, and
TO SudIu II t4AG ChA - 1LS -
pense of this Improvement should be
borne by the people of the United States
as a nation, as it was for the protection
of the United States as a whole, and not
only of the people of Hawaii. For his
reason he did not believe it proper that
Hawaii or these defendants should be
compelled to bear more than their fair
- I,,,Io, a-I tho itru uhOTIld
consider this fact fully. He also referred
to the United States attorneys reference
to the witnesses for the defendant as ex-
travagant in their valuations as showing
MIR. Dunno TO have a slight touch of this
same hysteria. and he thought that the
values placed by them were sound Inc
argume OF Mr.. Kinney occupied the
greater part Of the day, and he was fol-
lowed by Mr.. Dunno at 3 O'Clock. a
rather heated controversy took place De-
tween counsel over the remarks of MIR.
Dunno. to which Mr.. Kinney objected,
but the matter was finally settled by the
Court who ordered the United States at
torney 10 proceed with his argument.
Judge Estee's instructions were ex-
haustive and complete, and were allowed
to be taken into the jury room by the
Jury. The Court referred first to the
scope of the action, giving also a de-
scription of the land sought TO be con-
demncd, and stating that the question
before the jury was, what is the just
conversation to be paid by the United
States to the owners thereof?' he
cha ged the jury not 10 let the circunn-
stance of the United States being a party
have any weight upon the value fixed
The jury was also warned against fixing
any speculative value, but the limit must
be the actual condition of the property
July c, 1901.
''The burden of proving the market
value of the interest of the defendant to
the lands In question is upon the plain
tiff; in other words, the claim of the
plaintiff as to the amount of compensa-
ton to be awarded defendant must be
proven by the plaintiff by a preponder-
ance of the evidence"
In considering the value Of Kuahua
Island, the jury was told to take into
consideration the fact that it had never
been used for residence purposes, and
that the island IS surrounded by a lagoon
and the climate there Is excessively hot.
The Court further instructed the jury
as to the different and wide range Of
values placed upon the lands, and stated
that 1t must all be considered together,
and the honesty of all witnesses must
be assumed until the contrary appears.
Referring to the visit made to the land
by the jury, the Court said: 1.-The knowI-
edge so acquired may be used by you In
determining the weight of conflicting tes-
t.mony respecting the value of the land
but not otherwise"
In concluding the charge to the jury.
Judge Estee summed up the entire ques-
ton as follows:
I nave told you that the fair market
value of the property as that property
actually stood on July 9Th. 1901, should
be paid for It; and in this behalf 1
charge you that what this property
would bring at a fair public sale, where
one party wants to sell and another
wants to buy. may be taken as a critic
rion of it's market value. But you must
understand that compensation is to be
estimated in this case by the actual
rights acquired by the government, and
not by the use which the government
may make of these rights; and there
fore. l instruct you, tina the fact that
this property may be desired by or neces-
sary to the government, is not to be con-
sidered by you In fixing compensation.
/ further instruct you that the actual
value of this property cannot be en-
HANGED by reason of the projected i'm
l~provement for which IT is taken; for this
would simply be to make the government
pay for an enhancement caused by its
own work. And moreover. the willing
ness or u~nwillingness of the Bishop Es-
tate to part with it's property is not a
proper element of value; nor can YOU
consider what the Bishop Estate would
give rather than be deprived of this
property. As I have heretofore said, you
will, in determining compensation. lint
your 10 the market value OF
the property as it actually stood on JULY
9Th. 1901. and be guided solely by thai
Some evidence has been introduced by
the government showing certain valua-
lions sworn TO and filed with TIE asses
lsor. pursuant TO the requirements of the
Territorial statute in that regard. Upon
this subject I charge you that such
sworn returns to the assessor are called
by law admissions against interest and
are competent evidence tending TO show
1.-THE market value Of the prouerty referred