The Hawaiian gazette., 1911-08-01


the crop each calendar year and The
price at which it was to be sold was
exactly $500 per annum per acre of
the area cultivated; in other words. il
was in effect, whether in law or NOT
lease of the land at $500 per acre
per AMMAN.
Technical Compliance.
The rental was payable in advance
for the first year and semiannually in
advance for the other two years. It
was immaterial whether any crop was
harvested during the year or not, and
OF course, in some cases no crop was
harvested during the year, because it
takes more than twelve months and.
indeed, in that locality eighteen months
or more for crop to mature; in one
case, for instance, when the crop was
harvested near the end of the second
year, the land was allowed to go practi-
cally to weeds and grass during the
next year, because the homesteader
did not propose to do the cultivating
and the plantation could not obtain a
crop before the end of the third year.
The rent, called the price of the crop,
had to be paid, however.
In general a small garden was cult
waited by the homesteader on the house
lot bit in some cases this amounted
to almost nothing, and in very few
cases some cane was cultivated before
the end of the third year. In most
cases, after the expiration of the three
years, what was deemed Just enough
land, namely, 20 per cent of the area,
was cultivated, but at least in some
cases without fertilizer and in most
cases very poorly, apparently for the
purpose of complying technically with
the law in order to obtain patent.
Something for Nothing.
The purchase price of these lots was
$s,245.O0 in the aggregate, the first
class cane land having been obtained
at the rate of $500 per acre and less
valuable land at correspondingly low
er prices, the land being worth prob
ably at least four times that price. The
amounts, practically rent, received dur
ing the three years by the homesteaiers
from the plantation under the agree
ment referred to, amounted to $12,-
1890, that is, to $4,6S70S, or 5S per
cent, more than the total cost of the
land, or a profit of $390.63 on the
average for each lot--probably enough
in most cases to cover or more than
cover the cost of the house.
On the Hilo side, the three groups
of homesteads present a somewhat diff
ferent situation. There was apparent
ly no friction between the plantation
and the homesteaders, but the planta-
ton, at least in some cases, was in
entire harmony with the homesteadsrs,
not indeed because it favored the home
stealing of its cane lands, but because
it desired to make the best of dis
agreeable matter by endeavoring to
get friendly rather than hostile home
steaders ON the land.
In general the lots were smaller than
on the Kau side, ranging from an
average of 27.99 acres in one group to
an average of 1921 in another group,
as compared with an average Of 1884
on the Kau side. The homesteaders
were mostly Portuguese and Hawai-
iahs, while ON the Kau side they were
mostly Anglo Saxon.
Obvious Fraud.
On the Aau SIDE, the h0mesteaders IN
general had pretty good cottages, and
apparently some, perhaps most of them,
intend to make their homes there, while
on the Hilo side the great majority ap.
.parently never intended to make their
homes there. For instance, typical
case is that of person having
12'xl2' one room shack, sleeping there
at night much or most of the time for
exactly two years, the time supposed
to be required by the statute, aud
then abandoning the place, and even
dlring the two years taking his meals
elsewhere and working elsewhere.
Again, in the matter Of tree plant
ing, on the Kau side the conditions
have been In general very we'll per.
formed while in the majority Of eases
on the Hilo side that has been fas from
the ease.
For instance, typical case Is that
Of a person planting trees, perhaps |
just before the expiration Of the three |
years, and perhaps by nierely sticking |
them IN The ground 30 close together /
that they cannot possible thrive, and /
thea neglaellng them 10 be ehokea !
With Hqfda aud rfa4aHs "a rasss ..,s.a