The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-03-08
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
THE FENCING PROPOSALS

Two measures of vital interest to
the small farmers have attention of
the Legislature at this session and
both are in the hands of the Public
Lands committee. Yesterday morning,
before the session Of the Senate the
committee met a delegation of gentle
men interested in cattle and a still
smaller nunaber who have thrown their
money and energy into an attempt to
prove that the soil of Oahu is suited
to something beside growing cane and
pasturing cattle. The attempt, by the
way, has proved successful.
The bill under consideration in COM
mittee was that which refers to pounds
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, Fl. 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. E. 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 mild way showing
a conservative spirit but with a 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
flo anH tho tot of ofhor
persons similarly situated. He be-
lieved the owners of cultivated land,
unfenced, should at least have the pro-
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. It always costs him
from a dollar and a 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 a tendency
to make the cattle men more careful.
David Dowsett supported generally
section of the law providing that
the person taking up the animals shall
notify the owner. He believed this
was mistake and a mistake in formu
lating the notification might end dis
astrously. If it was left to the keep
er of the pound the responsibility
would not be on the farmers shoulders.
It will be seen by this that the cow
~ w ba;r nd
for protection to their interests. He
said further that the law would be a
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 unfenced cultivated land get
ting other damages than those aeeru-
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
a 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
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 s area
on to Government land and then stray |
where they please. If Government |
lands are injured, in the forest belt |
OF elsewhere, the Government may Sc
cure substantial damages because it
is uncultivated, unfenced land that is |