The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-01-30

afnlcted ones. aud solved the diflyuty
40 wisely. that others desire the henea
M ~ the provision that has been made
for lepers here
VIII, cannct each state make provi-
sion Tor its own. taking lessons and
pruntins by. " necessary, the expert
ence aud example ~ Hawaii. but fac
ing its own responsibilities and duties
Under the wise and humane course
pursued In these Islands. leprosy IL dis
. appearing. and there ~ cause To hope
that In time ~ viii be wholly eradicat-
cd. Tie task has been surrounded with
the greatest difficulties and has taxed
the powers OF the Government and the
skill of physicians. To have new and
additional obligations and burdens ad-
ded at this stage. In the manner pro-
posed we submit would be a grievous
wrong.
IL II were a fact that lepers could be
cured only at Molokai very different
question would arise; but 1t must be
conceded that IL is not necessary for
any purpose to send them to Hawaii
from the Mainland. for every communi-
ty there can easily segregate its lepers
and thoroughly protect its own people
from danger. To bring them here would
not be a matter of necessity but only
a mere matter of convenience to COM
munities on the mainland.
We submit, further, that IL would be
unfair. that the United States, sover-
eign though they be. should saddle upon
any one community the inevitable OPP
.probrium that would follow the selec-
ton of the Island of Molokai for q
leprosaria of the nation: II has no right
to brand a fair and beautiful and
.H,,I 81.
'Leper Islands" or the "Leper Reserva-
tion," or the PLAGUE Spot of the Pa
cific." These Islands are not generally
known by their respective names: peo-
pie generally have no knowledge OF any
part save Honolulu, and, perhaps, the
volcano" the only names that come
within their general hearing. 1t would
not be simply the Island OF Molokai,"
but rather The Islands" that would
be connected in nearly every mind with
the loathsome name and disease of lep-
rosy. and what would be the direct and
unjust result?
No longer would tourists and travel
lers, generally, seek this place, and the
benefits now brought by their coming
would be lost; no longer would the
products and merchandise exported
from here be received on an equality
with that Of other states and coun-
tries, and the now fair and prosperous
outlook Of this new Territory would be
darkened, and the grossest injustice
perpetrated upon its people who have
only within a few years past applied
, for admission into the United States,
believing in it's bounty, munificence and
justice.
At what instance was this idea or
30
universal cry ana Glamour of the peo-
pie of the United States. for there is
no such call. The good or safety of
, the nation does not require It; the bene-
fit to the great mainland would be in
finitesimal. On the other hand there
Is not one person in the Islands who
has their good at heart, VINO could
give even a reluctant assent to such
plan.
Dated Honolulu, January, 1903.
The extension of the United States
general land laws to the Territory of
| Of Hawaii appear to your memorial
lists inadvisable for the following rea-
! sons, which,. though stated az briefly
as possible, will be found to be sub
stantiated by the published articles
and opinions of those who have had
long experience and have been direct
, ly connected with land matters In this
, Territory.
The existing Hawaiian land laws
were enacted under full and COM
plete understanding Of all the peculiar
conditions of the country, and under
the leadership of men anxious for the
up-building of homes and small hold
ings. They were adapted to a country
presenting enormous differences In
contour of lands, accessibility and
value.
They were modelled largely after the
laws Of New Zealand, than which, no
country has shown a more ardent ad-
! herence to the cause of the small land
owner, and were intended to cons .rve
and make best use of the remaining
public domain. which, though NOM
inally large, was, on account OF the
immense amount Of barren. waste and
inaccessible land. small for The pur-
POSES fnr which the law WAS intended.
They mada stringent provisions for
cultivation and residence In order that
| the lands should not be acquired by
spectators and the purposes OF the law
defeated, and by special terms pro-
yided a Glass 6f inalienabie hol hrgs.
intended primarily to protect the ma
| tive Hawaiian from his own imprcv-
idence.
The trainers of these laws recog-
nized the value and necessity iof a.
lease system under proper restrictions,
| which has proven to have been not
! only needed source OF revenue 70 She
, country. but to have been instrument,
tai in developing otherwise wholly
| unproductive lands.
The law has been commended !, by
bona fide homesteaders as being a fair
| and Just one. well suited to the condi-
lions.
Although the results under this law
have not realized all the hopes of its
advocates, the reasons are not far to
seek. Homesteading In Hawaii Is a
difficult propositlon-not from the diff
, ficulty Of acquiring land, but from the