The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-03-12

protection of the Pacific coast. AS for
the distribution OF money in the ISL
ands, Silliman said that the United
States was taking away a million and
a quarter in customs duties annually
and spending very little of it here.
Though loving the United States, which
was his native country, he contended
that il was an outrage on the part Of
its representatives to attempt to take
this Pearl HarbOr land without ade-
quate compensation. The United States
was well able to pay for it, and the
people of the Territory should be treat
ed with fairness. which he commended,
had not been the general policy of the
central government toward this coun-
try or its people. nor was it treating
the defendant in this case properly. Mr.,
Silliman was finally interrupted by the
Court with the remark that he should
discuss the case and not the United
States. Mr.. Dunno Clipped in that he
couldn't sit still and hear the United
States assailed in that manner. The
argument finally proceeded without
further interruption.
The jury was instructed. at the con-
clusion of Mr.. Dunnes address, very
much on the lines laid down in the first
trial. Judge Estee described the con-
demned property, and the various leas
es. by which it came into the posses
sion of the defendant. The jury was
instructed that ii could not consider
the mere speculative or possible value
OF sugar that might be produced in the
future on this land"
All improvements on the land. the
Court instructed the jury. became the
property of the Bishop Estate upon the
termination of the lease. Instructions
were given also not to consider the
mill. pumping plants. or anything not
upon the sol acres TO be condemned.
The written admission OF the defend
ant. i'm the form OF tax returns, and
the statement filed with the Treasurer.
the jury was also instructed to con-
slider. The jury was further instructed:
1T is also your duty to consider that
that this land is not now appropriated
70 any valuable use. that a.. is not now
producing n crop
Testimony relative to favorable
places for wharves along the line OF
the property. the jury was instructed
To ignore. on the ground that the Unit
ed States already owned those rights
by virtue of a treaty with King Kala-
kaua. In conclusion the Court said:
1t will be seen sby the terms OF said
treaty OF 1887 that the United States
then secured the exclusive right to the
land-locked waters of Pearl Harbor,
and so while private parties may own
land bordering on these waters, the
waters themselves have belonged to the
United States since the date of that
treaty.
/ therefore instruct you. that in
reaching a verdict you are not to con-
slider or place any value upon said in
land waters as belonging to the pri-
vate parties now litigating with the
United States government, because al
though the treaty made between the
Kingdom of Hawaii and the United
states Of America in 1887. by which
Pearl HaTbor was coded to the United
States did not in any way affect pri-
vate ownership in the lands fronting
on said harbor. those parties have no
interest other than that OF every citi-
zen OF the United States in the sloughs
and waters of Pearl Harbor, for these
inland waters are now and since 1887,
have been the property OF the United
States.
IT conclusion let me say to you that
the evidence in this case is very con-
fiicting. and without commenting upon
the testimony of any one witness. I
instruct you that in considering the
testimony OF all the witnesses in this
case. you may accept such portions
thereof as you may believe TO be trIle,
or reject such portions thereof as YOU
may believe to be false. II the state
ments OF any one or more witnesses
are SO unreasonable or improbable as
that upon their face they do not carry
conviction OF their truth to your minds.
YOU are liberty to reject all or any part
thereof (S5 y. Y. SD.
Gentlemen OF the Jury. under the
pleadings in this case. there is but one
issue involved-the amount OF the just
compensation to be awarded to the de-
PENDANT for the taking OF its property.
You must therefore find for the plain
tin a verdict condeTnning the leasehold
interest of the defendant. the Honolulu
Plantation Company in and to the 551.2
acres Of land desired by the govern
meut; and you must find a verdict in
favor OF the defendant for the amount
Of the compensation which from all
the testimony you shall deem just
ESTEE. Judge.
March Il. 1902.