The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-03-08

| injured but we who have cultivated
our land can get two bits a head fol
our share of the damage the same cat
| tie may do to our crops.
Mr.. Thomas presented a petition tC
the committee asking that the dis
elimination made against the owner
of the unfenced cultivated LAID be
eliminated from the bill. The farmers
| ask no better protection than is given
th,, owner of uncultlvated lands.
Chairman Hayselde1 remarked thai
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 havx
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-
tion 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 is no
fence they viii get in.
Judge Perry said that because ne
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
from theirs AS a matter of protec-
ton to himself he had been forced
to impound cattle and the damage done
by them was more than the amount
he had received from the amount al
lowed by law. The small farmer should
protect himself. The idea that the
Legislature must protect him Is
fallacy. This is proven by the increase
in property values. 1t has been stated
here that land has increased in value
from ten cents to a hundred dollars an
acre. / say if that can be done by
the small farmer why should he ask for
the same protection as the man whose
land is worth only ten cents an acre7
I have heard of land in Wahiawa
selling for more than that, one man
being reported as the owner of prop
ertv that is considered worth $4,000.
To the chair he said he agreed that
the cattle men should fence their land.
The people be represented had fenced
one side of the Kahuku lands but the
Government left it's side open. lie be-
lieved the Government should do its
share, there is no reason why 1t should
be exempt.
Mr.. Clark said that all of his lands
are not planted to pineapples; some
were in grass. The pineapple portion
is exempt from taxes and will be for
the next two years. He stated that
if the cattle men would plant their
lands to grass the result would be
very different to them. He had plant
ed some of his and his return APP
proximated two hundred dollars an
acre. The ten-cent land of the cattle
men would do as well and they would
find they could keep more cattle on
the area ana they Would De ldIIei' IL
reply to question by Mr.. Dowsett,
Clark said he would take some OF the
land of the Dowsett estate and do as
we'll. Some of his grass land is IT.
rigated and much is not.
1t being the hour for the Senate to
convene adjournment was taken until
the afternoon. No one appearing at
the time there was no other meeting
Following is an extract from the laws
of California on the subject of fencing:
SPECIAL ACT.
Any owner or occupant of any land,
or possessory claim, finding any horse,
mare, mule, etc, upon such land or
possessory claim having done or do
ing any damage, whether the same be