The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-02-05

I'M the matter with Secretary Metcalf,
and in nv perhaps vigorous way sug-
pested that if the boat belonged TO
rhe Federal government I would glad
" nav for a cablegram if he would in
form me TO which department 1 could
turn her over, and where the Territory
could look to be reimbursed for the
expenditure on her repairs and the cost
of maintaining the Waterman.
Secretary MetcaIf did not cable the
information, but furnished me with
an opinion of the Attorney Generals
department, which states. as 1 have
outlined, that it appears no provision
has been made for the disposition of
the personal property ceded by the
Federal government on July I, 1898.
If the Attorney Generals opinion is
sound law, it leaves the Territory in
most awkward position, not only in
regard to this tug, but there are
numerous instances of other embar
easements and what is probably more
serious, considerable of this property
has been sold and the money passed
into the Territorial treasury. AS
forcible illustration of this embarrass-
ment on July I, 1898 the Republic of
Hawaii was the owner of considerable
live stock used in the public service.
These, by virtue of the organic act,
as is so clearly shown by the Attorney
Generals opinion, passed into the pos
session of the United States, so far
title was concerned. Many of these
animals have become absolutely unfit
for the only use the Territory can put
them to. Under the law, as construed,
it is impossible to sell them. The ami
NAL can not be used, neither can it be
destroyed. 1t must therefore in such
a case remain in the care of the Ter
ritory at a constant expense and with
out benefit to the Territory or to the
United States.
Again, much material used in inter
nal improvements became the prop
erty of the United States. But when
road or other machinery becomes out
of date. by reason of later inventions
and improvements, the Territory can
not even sell these WORKOUT or OBJ
sOlete implements as old iron, but is
compelled to retain them and will have
to provide storage at a considera BILE
expense. Similar instances of this ma
ture might be multiplied indefinitely.
This legislation (the joint resolution
of anneXation) was passed more than
seven years ago. With perhaps few
exceptions the personal property at
that time owned by the Republic, and
so coded, has outlived it's usefulness,
and is of comparatively little value for
use either by the Territory or the
United States.
Thus it would appear almost i'm
peratively necessary to secure the pas
sage of an act by which the Territory
would be given the power to dispose
by sale of personal property and by
which all sales made in the past would
be ratified. This would certainly work
no financial injury to the United States,
and failure to make such provision
would simply mean that such property
now in the possession of the Territory
would go to ruin without either the
Federal government or the Territory
receiving any benefit from it.
l trust this somewhat lengthy letter
will enable you to understand the sit
uatfon, and that if opportunity offers
you will not hesitate to explain to
members of Congress the peculiar pre-
dicament and the necessity of legisla-
ton of some kind
Very sincerely, yours.
G. r. CARTER.
Governor
HON. E. A. HITCHCOCK,
Secretary of the Interior, Wash
ington, D. G.