The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-02-14
CORPORATION
CANNOT BID
DoIe's Opinion on
Thousand-Acre
Clause.
THE TERRlTORY'S
RIGHTS DEFINED
Has No More Power Than Private
Parties in Selling Land to
Plantations.

L
ney-General Dole TO the Execu-
tive Council at the request of thu
governor, corporations owning on
thousand acres of land in the Territor!
will not be allowed to bid in more
However, the plantations may still &C
quire leases and the opinion will no
change existing conditions, though un
der it, when present leases expire, the
sugar corporations would not be allow
ed to purchase land in fee simple in ex-
cess of one thousand acres.
The opinion settles many interesting
points of Importance to the plantations
and is given herewith in full:
MR.. DOLES OPINION.
Territory of Hawaii,
Office of the Attorney General
Honolulu, H. T., Feb IS. 1902.
To His Excellency Sanford B. Dole, Gov
ernor of the Territory of Hawaii:
Sir:-I have the honor to acknowledge
receipt of your request for my opinion
as to how far the thousand acre clause
in Section SO of the Organic Act limits
the power of the Territory to sell and
convey real estate
The provision in question is as follows:
mo corporation, domestic foreign,
shall acquire and hold real estate in Ha-
wall in excess of one thousand acres;
and all real estate acquired or held by
such corporation or association contrary
hereto shall be forfeited and escheat to
the United States; but existing vested
rights in real estate shall not be impair
ed"
Under date of April 10th, 1901, 1 sub
mitted opinion that the above provi-
sion does not apply to leaseholds, unless,
possibly, leaseholds for such long periods
as may be substantially equivalent to
ownership. This opinion was approved
by the Attorney General of the United
States. The questions now raised, there
fore, relate only to conveyances in fee,
or, at least, substantial ownership.
The obvious intention of Congress was
to limit future acquisitions of land in
Hawaii by corporations. 1t said, exist
ing vested rights in real estate shall not
be impaired L think the words lin real
estate cannot be eliminated by con-
struction SO as to make the provision
read existing vested rights shall not be
impaired" l think the words "in real
estate" cannot be enlarged by construc-
ton and addition SO as to make the pro-
vision read, existing vested rights in
real estate, and to sell or purchase real
estate shall not be impaired" Where
the words and intent of Congress are
plain and unmistakable, they cannot be
contracted, stretched or distorted to
make them mean what they do not mean.
They must be accepted and obeyed as
far as they apply, unless they violate
some provision of the Constitution of the
United States.
THE laws of Hawaii relating to public
lands shall continue in force I'M
til Congress shall otherwise provide.
All funds arising from the sale or
lease or other disposal of such lands
shall be appropriated by the laws of the
government of the Territory of Hawaii,
and applied TO such uses and purposes
for the benefit of the inhabitants of the
Territory of Hawaii as are consistent
with the Joint Resolution of Annexation
approved July 7th 1885, Section 49, Or
ganic Act Instructions from Washing
ton also authorize the Territorial govern
ment to sell public lands the same as
they were sold under the Republic, sub
ject, of course to all provisions of law
relating thereto.
But the Territory can have no greater
right than a private individual to sell
lands to the purchaser who will pay
most for them. 1t may even not have
the same right as a private individual,
for the title TO public lands in this Terri
tory is in the United States, and the
power of Congress over the Territories
Il
nary, arising from and incidental TO the
right to acquire the Territory itself, and
from the power given by the Constitution
to make all needful rules and regulations
respecting the Territory other proper
~ belonging to the United States" Nor
mon Church VS., United States. 1876 u. s, |
[. think il is clear that the Territory |
cannot lawfully sell land TO any pur-
,haser lawfully prohibited from buying |
Section 10 of Article I of the Constitu- |!
ion of the United States declares that: |
NO state shall pass any
aw impairing the obligation of con-
racts." If the limitation in question had |
,een embodied in a state constitution or |
,assed by a state legislature. a long line
f judicial decisions, headed by the great /
ase of Dartmouth College vs. Wood |
ward, might be arrayed against its con-
titutionality on behalf of corporations
reated prior ia October 24th. 1880 But
section 10 Of Article I applies to state
constitutions and state legislatures only;
does not extend TO Congress legislat-
ng for Territories
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Con-
ttution of the United States declares:
Nor shall any state deny to any
arson within its Jurisdiction the equal |
rejection of the laws This also Is
initiation of state power, not the power
f Congress.
Most Of the States have constitutional
rohibitions against the passage Of retro
pective laws. but the Constitution OF ;
be United States contains no such pro-
ision Within its sphere Of legislation
ongress has power to pass retrospective
Tvs. The decision Of the Supreme Court