The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-01-27
WHO OWNS
THE FISH?
EVA japanese Say Uncle
Sam and Not the
Konohiki.

A fight is being put up by some of
the japanese fishermen temporarily en-
joined. at the suit of the o. r. & L
uliuli fishery and taking therefrom the
kinds of fish under the ancient kono-
hiki tabu. The outcome will be of
great Importance, if the case should
be carried up. for final adjudication,
to the United States Supreme Court.
Geo. A. Davis and A. NJ. Brown have
filed the answer of Fukunaga and ten
others of the twenty-four japanese
fishermen against whom the Oahu
Railway & Land Co. has brought a
bill for injunction to restrain them
from trespassing upon the honolulu
sea fishery
1t will be remembered that Fuku-
naga was discharged, under writ of
habeas corpus, from Imprisonment
in default of paying a fine of 500 and
costs imposed by District Magistrate
Hookano of Eva, on the ground that
lection of konohiki, or landlord, fish
cries were abrogated by the Organic
Act, and that the vested rights pre-
served in that enactment could only
be guarded by civil proceedings.
These defendants deny that they will
fully or otherwise trespassed upon any
water fishery or property of the plain
tiff or took or appropriated any null
let or amaama belonging to, or in
which the plaintiff had any right or
property.
They aver that the waters where the
fish We're caught were in Pearl Harbor
and in the public navigable waters of
this Territory of the United States OF
America, owned and controlled by the |
Government of the United States, and |
that plaintiff did not and could not ac- |
quire any such rights therein as al |
legged. They allege that they We're not |
trespassing in or upon the property of |
the plaintiff but were lawfully fishing |
in the said waters and catching swim |
ming, natural and unconfned fish !
therein as they had a lawful right to |
do under the law of the land" and |
under the provisions of IAN Act to
Provide a Government for the Terri
tory of Hawaii" and the ''said fish
cries We're and are free to the citizens
of the United States and the inhabi-
tants of this Territory"
In tie succeeding paragraph it is
claimed that the fish the respondents
were catching were the property of the
United States, and that the plaintiff
had no vested right in the fish or the
waters where they We're caught.
Besides putting the plaintiff to its
proof that it is the konohiki or owner
of the honolulu fishery, that it has
taken the necessary steps to establish
its vested right as such under the Or
ganic Act, etc, these respondents deny
that they are insolvent as alleged in
the petition. They say they pursue
the calling of fishermen for a living
and have no real estate. but they have
never been declared insolvent and no
judgments have been entered up
against them which they are unable
to pay. Among other things they al
lege and aver as follows:
THAT the said plaintiff had no pow
er or authority to claim or set apart
said fish or any of them as alleged,
for said fish came from the open sea
Or Pacific Ocean, over the reef at the
entrance to said Pearl Harbor from
lay to day and time to time, and thus
INTO said waters, and could not be set
apart or acquired in the manner set
1ut in said petition or otherwise. and
when said fish came into said waters
md harbor the said defendants had
awful right to catch them, and the
said fish when caught became and
we're the property of the said defend
'nts, and the said defendants specific
lily deny that they unlawfully and
appropriated said fish as
alleged.
The respondents deny the jurisdiction
= the judge presiding at chambers to
ssue the temporary injunction. This
s the same point that has been APP
)ealed to Washington in the Parker
'ase and which has been raised in
numerous other cases now pending
An affidavit of each of the eleven
respondents IS flee in support of a