The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1907-03-08

the Legislature at this session an,
both are in the hands of the Publ,
Lands committee. Yesterday morning
before the session of the Senate, tn,
committee met delegation of gentle
men interested in cattle and still
smaller number who have thrown thei
money and energy into an attempt t.
prove that the soil of Oahu is suitet
to something beside growing cane an,
pasturing cattle. The attempt, by the
way, has proved successful.
The bill under consideration in com
mittee was that which refers to pound,
and unfenced lands uncultivated and
cultivated. The title of the bill gives
the impression that impounding animals
is the main feature and may be mis-.
leading to the average owner of land,
Among those in the audience yester-
day were Judge Perry, II. M. Won Holt,
David and Alika Dowsett for the COW
men and B. o. Clark and w. p.
Thomas for the cultivators of the pine.
apples ana other fruits. 7. l.. Petrie,
of castle & Cooke, would not admit
to representing any particular inter-
est so he was considered as present in
| behalf of "all others.'
Judge Perry was the first to speak
and he did so in a mild way showing
conservative spirit but with de-
sire to help the under dog, which in
this instance appears to be the pine
apple man. He said he was present
as an owner of small bunch Of cat
tie and as the representative of other
persons similarly situated. He be-
lieved the owners of cultivated land,
IL. 1, h.
lection given owners of uncultivated
land not fenced. AS to the amount of
damages collectable it was prepost-
erous. He had had experience and the
sum provided in the bill would not
pay driving fees. 1t Away costs him
from dollar and half to two dol
lars and quarter head driving fees
and an allowance of that amount
should be allowed in the bill. AS to
any further damages he would be salts
fed with one dollar, make the damage
nominal, for if the driving fees are
made higher it will have tendency
to make the cattle men more careful.
David Dowsett supported generally
the ideas of the Judge but referred to
a section of the law providing that
the person taking up the animals shall
notify the owner. He believed this
was a mistake and mistake in formu-
lating the notification might end dis
astrously, If it was left to the keep
err of the pound the responsibility
would not be on the farmer shoulders.
1t will be seen by this that the COW
men are not rapacious in their demand
for protection to their interests. He
said further that the law would be
burden on the small man who has no
pens in which to put the cattle.
Judge Perry said the number of cat
tie trespassing should not affect the
case in any way. The owner of two
or more head of cattle is as responsible
for damage as the owner of fifty that
stray away but in the latter case an
exception is made. To the chair he
said he was not working against the
owner of nnfenced cultivated land get
ting other damages than those accru-
ing from driving fees but he believed
that if these fees were made larger
by law it would tend to make the
cattle men careful.
Farmer Thomas said the opinion on
the outside is that this law is strictly
small farmer measure which is not
the case; it covers all owners of land
and cattle. Under the fence laws the
cattle man takes advantage and the
adjoining holder of land in order to
protect himself goes half the expense
of the line fence. The Government,
however, does not feel called upon to
do any fencing and the result is that
cattle get out of the cattleman IS area
on to Government land and then stray
where they please. If Government
lands are injured, in the forest belt
or elsewhere, the Government may Sc
cure substantial damages because it
+ is uncultivated, unfenced land that is
injured but we who have cultivated
our land can get two bits head for
our share of the damage the same cat
tie may do to our crops.
Mr.. Thomas presented petition to
the committee asking that the dis
elimination made against the owner
of the unfenced cultivated land be
eliminated from the bill The farmers
ask no better protection than is given
the owner of uncultivated lands.
Chairman Hayselden remarked that
aside from the pineapple interests
| there are the cane interests to con-
slider. On Maui none of the cane land
| is fenced and to make one of the
amendments suggested would compel
the men interested in sugar to fence
all of their lands. He asked if the
farmers wanted the cane men to have
the same protection, and Mr.. Thomas
said: "Certainly, they are entitled to
| it,
Judge Perry said if the law was so
worded as to compel the cattle men
to fence there should be no objection
to it. They should keep their cattle
ON their own lands.
Mr.. Dowsett said ranchers generally
fence their lands for their own protec-
ton and it seemed that if the cul-
tivators would be forced to do the
same it would be just. Cattle will
yield to temptation when there is any
good food in sight and if there l. no
fence they viii get in.
Judge Perry said that because he
had fine watch that was admired by
someone else, and taken from him, the
thief could not claim temptation as a
justification for his act.
Mr.. Won Holt said he felt as he
had expressed himself at the last meet
| ing of the committee. Different peo-
pie had different experiences. Judge
| Perry and Mr. Dowsett no doubt spoke