The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-03-01
FARMERS
COMPLAIN
Wahiawa Fruitmen Want
the Railroad Cattle
Kept Out.

At the meeting of the Public Lands
committee yesterday there was more
personal. and almost bitter, feeling
shown at times than was expected
The statements brought out q con-
dition similar to that which existed on
the great ranges OF Texas. where cat
tie had roamed unrestricted rntfl the
homer" appeared to cultivate the soil
and with the cultivation came a mar
rowing of the range and an Increase
In the value OF the lands
In the case OF the Hawaiian settler
the positions are reversed and Il is he
who demands that the ranchmen fence
their lands and keep their cattle from
roaming Upoi the cultivated lands and
out of the feds of pineapples and lus-
cious strawberries. 1t was these men
who composed the iarger part of the
audience of opponents to the proposed
Senate Bill No. IL which is TO regulate
the impounding of stray animals and
fix the penalty for their roaming in
to cultivated pastures.
Byron o. CLARK. w. b. Thomas and
L. b. Nevins represented the small
farmers from the vicinity OF wahiawa
and Pupukea while III. M. Won Holt
stood to defend the interests OF the
ranchers.
Chairman Hayselden stated the pur-
port of the bill and asked for opinions
from those interested. He said the OBJ
jections to the bill seemed to be CEN
tered upon the section relative to the
damages which an owner Of cultivated
land might secure from the cattleman.
w. B. Thomas, one OF the settlers
from Pupukea who owns a tract that
he has cultivated In pineapples. WIS
the first to make a statement. His
land Is adjacent to a cattle ranch and
is constantly in danger from the cat
tie that roam over his and adjoining
lands According to the law he could
take up the cattle and impound them
in his corrals for twenty-four hours
and recover damages at the rate OF
twenty-five cents a head and fifty
cents per head for impounding them.
This might occur every day and in
each instance he must notify the own
er of the cattle in writing that he IN
tends to imDound them.
He believes the necessity for notify
ing the owner each time the cattle
get into the land Is super7uous. that
a notice per annum should answer all
purposes. He said his land is I'm pine
apples and he keeps no cattle TO de-
predate, but to protect himself from
the cattle of others he must go to the
expense Of corrals in which to put the
cattle he may take upon his land and
to fence his property. Practically the
cattleman has none of the expenses
to protect his interests. He said he
would have TO keep the cattle for
twenty-four hours before he could coll
lect any damages.
In answer to the chair he said there
were twenty settlers at Pupukea af-
fected by the law. Thy had taken up
the land on twenty-one year leases and
there is no provision i'm the lease for
the fencing by lessees.
The witness stated that I'm his opin-
ion it was unfair that the cultivators
of the soil should pay for the fencing
of a ranch which is the heaviest part of
the expense Of the business. He cited
an instance where he found cattle on
his land and undertook to get them
off but they ran down into the gulches
and escaped. In that. instance there
was no redress for him.
Byron o. Clark stated his objections
to the bill in general. remaking that
Section 13 Of the bill should apply TO
industries involving land either cul-
tivated or not He believed the men
who cultivate the soil and by such cul-
tivation increase the taxable property
should have the same protection as
those engaged i'm a nomadie industry
like raising cattle.
Mr.. Thomas described the manner OF
fencing in wahiawa lands and showed
where the cattle now have free access
to the detriment of the small farmers.
1.-The people OF this Territory have been
trying for fifty years to grow things"
he remarked. "and we are in a posi-
ton to show that they will grow but
we are hampeTed by the law that per-
mits cattle to come on our land and
denies us proper redress"
Mr.. Nevins supported Mr.. Clark.
He said few head of cattle could get
on his land ard trespass on his berry
patch of an acre and do a thousand
dollars worth Of damage in a night and
his redress amounted to practically
nil. He cited a case where a cattleman
had been sued for damages for tres
pass but on account or a technicallty
i'm the wording Of the notice sent by
Mr. Ellsworth. & small farmer. the case
was thrown out of court and he had 10
pay the costs. The cattle are tres
passing on the forest lands and the
forest line is being destroyed in con-
sequence and Is going back all OF the
time. Compared with the damage to
the farmer that TO the forest was
merely nominal.
Mr.. Won Holt. c. behalf of the stock
men. said Mr. Nevias had ms the nall
on the head as 10 nominal damages
when the cattle tresDass on unculti-
waited land. If the suggestion that the
and Of the cattlemen be fenced or the
lamages be made greater what lis to
prevent the sugar men from doing up
svery owner OF COW or a horse that
CONTINUED on Page Four.)