The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1902-01-11
EsTEE's INSTRUCTIONS TO PEARL
HARBOR JURY.
Possible Sugar Values of the Future
Not to be Considered-Hawaii's
Treaty With Uncle Sam.

and the jury retired to consider theI
verdict half an hour later. The charBeI
was a quite lengthy one. 1t was eX-
| cepted to on many points by the defen
/ dants and the government also had dsev-|
! eral exceptions to note, The form Of
the blank verdict handed to the jury was
also a subject of disagreement The
| principal points in the charge We're
| stated as follows after the court had
! stated the issue as to the HonoluluI
Plantation Company's leasehold inter
est in the land being condemned;
In placing a valuation upon this lease
! hold interest you cannot consider the
/ mere speculative or possible value of
sugar that might be produced on this
lana ten, twenty or thirty years from
now. This is too remote and uncertain
and counts for no just basis for a valua-
! tiOn. So the amount of sugar which il
! is claimed can be produced on this land
! is purely speculative the amount of
! the future crop would depend on many
! conditions, the amount of water used,
! the character of the cultivation and
! many other elements which must enter
into the problem Of crop which might
/ be produced in any one or series of
years. But you may consider what the
! land is best suited for, and the defen-
| dant is entitled to a Just compensa-
ton" for it's leasehold interest in these
! lands for any purpose for which 1t may
value of this piece of land sought by the
! government for public purposes, con-
| slider any usefulness it may possess to
the Honolulu Plantation Company in
! view of it's whole property, its needs
| and its equipment
And if from the evidence you should
find that the defendant has any i'm
provements upon that portion of the
| land covered by the leasehOld interest
of the defendant, and sought to be con-
demned by the United States, which
were there prior to the 9Th day of July
1901 you are to find the value thereof
separate and distinct froH'the value Of
! the leasehold itself in said lands.
And in this regard, l instruct you
I that you cannot consider in this case
the cost or value of the sugar mill, the
pumping station or other machinery be-
longing to the defendant, if not COM
structed or standing upon the land
sought to be condemned by the United
States, at the time Of the taking, to Wit:
July 9Th, 1901.
In this case certain co-called ex-
pert testimony has been introduced, bpt
instruct you that 1t is your province
to weight the testimony of the witnesses
whose opinions have been given upon
the subject of the value of defendant S
leasehOld interest in this land, by re-
ference to the whole situation of that
portion of the property sought to be
| COuuellueu ny the Unlleu states upon
which this leasehOld interest exists, and
by applying to all these circumstances
your own knowledge and general eXper-
ience. The evidence of experts as to
value does not differ in principle from
the evidence of experts upon other sub
: jects. Then so far from laying aside
, your own knowledge and ideas, you
may apply that general knowledge and
those ideas to the matters of fact in
evidence, in this case, determining the
, weight to be given to the opinions eX-
pressed.
Some evidence has been introduced by
the Government tending to show GER
! tain valuations of this Ieasehold in
terest sworn to by the defendant
/ through it's Manager, Mr.. Low before
Z the commencement Of these proceed
ings, to wit: certain tax returns filed
with the Assessor pursuant to the law
{ of the Territory. Such sworn returns
if duly made by the representative OF
the defendant, to the Assessor are call
ed in law, admissions against interest
, and are competent evidence tending tC
} show the then market value of the
property. LOu may therefore consider
such returns along with the other evil
dence in the case bearing upon the
question of value of this property, and
= give to it such weight as to you may
5 seem just.
Defendant has asked for certain in
, structiOns arising out of the treaties en-
tered into between the Kingdom of Ha-
wall and the United Jtates Govern
ment in 1887 and in refusing to give
e any but one Of said instructions
think it proper to state to the Jury
| that in the year 1875 and again in 1887
two treaties were negotiated between
: the Government of Hawaii then repre-.
sented by King Kalakaua and the Re.
public of the United States by which
tha
, prOcity to Hawaiian sugar and other
1 articles produced in Hawaii
In the treaty stipulatiOns of 1887, OF
which treaty stipulatiOns this Court
must take judicial cOgnizance il was
n prescribed by Article II, thereof, as fol
e lows:
e His majesty the King of the Hawai-.
}. ian Islands grants to the government
of the United States, the exclusive right
> to enter the Harbor of Pearl River, in
the Island of Oahu and establish and
maintain there a cOaling and repair sta
ton for the use Of vessels Of the United
States, and to that end, the United
States may improve the entrance to
said HarbOr and do all other things
, needful for the purpose aforesaid"
1t will be seen by the terms Of said
Treaty of 1887, the United States then
secured the exclusive right" to the
land locked water of Pearl Harbor and
Il 81 Wlllt private parties may own the
a lands bordering on these waters the
waters themselves have belonged Ia
the United States since the date of that
Treaty. This is and has been an oper
and notorious fact.
? In reaching verdict you are not tC
- consider or place any value upon the
water rights in front Of or bordering up
on said inland waters as belonging to
the private parties now litigating witt
J the United States government because
although the treaty made between th'
Kingdom of Hawaii and the United
States OF America in 1887 by whicl
Pearl Harbor was ceded to the Unite,
States did not in any way affect pri
vate ownership in the lands fronting
d on said Harbor, yet those parties hav
no interest, Otner than that of ever.
citizen of the United States, in tn
Continued on page fve)