The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-01-07
BOTH CLAIM
The WATER.
Question Of Rights in
lao Valley.
COMPROMISE PROBABLE.
Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar
Company and WaiIuku Par
ties Interested.
Especial Correspondence

WAILUKU, Maui, Jan. "a most inn
portant lawsuit for trespass is on the
tapis. 1t is question of the water
rights of the crown lands in lao valley,
formerly under lease to the Waikiki Su-
gar Company, but now since January l,
1901, (the date of the expiration of the
lease), at the disposal of it's owners-the
Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Compa-
ny. By an old decision the water of lao
valley was apportioned to the Wailuku
Sugar Company, and to the Hawaiian
owners of kuleanas in the valley The
decision did not consider the rights of
the crown lands (being then leased to
the Wailuku plantation, and so is prob
ably defective.
The Waikiki Sugar Company has since
purchased a number of the native kule
aras, so the water question is somewhat
involved The recent visit of Attorneys
Hartwell, w. o. Smith, Alex Robertson
and w. r. Castle to Maui was concern
ing this proposed suit, for they, together
with F. NJ. Hatch, have been employed
by the Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar
Company to prosecute its side of the
issue.
Inc water undef dispute IS capable Oh
lirrigating about 700 acres of cane. The
new upper ditch of the Wailuku plan
tation is said to divert some of the wa
ter in dispute. People well Informed
concerning the case state that there is
| right on both sides, and SO it is a mat
ter for compromise. 1t is to be recalled
that the Hawaiian Commercial Company
not long ago purchased for $780, 600 all the
fright, title and interest of Claus Spreck-
| els to the crown lands in Wailuku.
| W r. Castle, one of the counsel re-
tanned by the Haweaian Commercial &
Sugar Company in this matter, said yes
terday that the plantation was hoping to
| come to an amicable arrangement with
the Wailuku Plantation Company and
he believed this would be effected.
! II do not believe there win be a law
isuit over the question: said Mr.. Castle.
1.-The lease of the Wailuku company
merely expired on January 1, 1901, and
we are now to determine what shall be
done with this surplus in the future.
This lease was of the crown lands to the
Waikiki company for twenty years.
Since that lease was made Claus Spreck-
els bought out the right of Ruth Keeliko-
LAM, one of the Kamehamehas and the
Hast heir to the Kamehameha property.
That is, her rights in the crown lands
lease We're purchased Then the Legis-
lature of 1882 authorized the Crown
Lands Commissioners to convey to him
the entire ahupaa of Waikiki, includ-
ling lao valley, the towns of Waikiki,
Kahului and the Hawaiian Commercial
| & Sugar lands. Claus Spreckels was
succeeded twice in the ownership of the
Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Compa-
lny-the last transfer being made in 1898.
The successors bought out whatever
rights he had in the valley and the
lands of the ahupaa. So, of course, to-
day the Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar
Company owns whatever rights belonged
to the konohiki, but what those rights
are in the water have never been deter
mined The principle is well established
| in Hawaiian courts that the taro lands
are entitled to their water, and I sup
lpose after that the konohiki is entitled
| to the rest of the water That is the
iquestion in this matter.
| with regard to the 100000 matter,
that sum was really paid to settle law
suit. The Spreckels boys were suing
Claus Spreckels, and when they lost con-
troll of the plantation they concluded
simply to buy out the thing and stop
the lawsuit