Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1912-10-01

there was Justification for this para
graph in the Delegates Charges? !
think the Governor has said enough
to show that this was true. Assuming
that the Governor did not have time
to go into it, and the Delegate mere
| ly put in a complaint as to the then
existing public opinion, whether the
opinion was right or wrong, perhaps
there was justification in incorporat-
ing that paragraph in the complaint?
Governor: ! think so.
Fisher: As / understand, many OF
these charges in the complaint were
inserted simply because of the fact
that the matters were called to your
Iattention, and that OF the Delegate by
interested parties, that you thought
ought to be Investigated: isn't that so
Mr.. Ashford?
Ashford: Yes. that is true In re-
gard to great many of them
Governor: Now in regard to the
railroad matters. / think one further
thing might be said in regard to the
Waikiki water case. Very little need
be said as to the exchange which was
mentionedt in regard to this, except.
ing this, that the application came
from the County Board of Supervis-
ors and not from the plantation; and
the matter was gone into carefully.
Three disinterested appraisers were
appointed and made very complete
appraisement, a statement of their
findings, and the reason which led
them to make, the appraisement as
they did. They found that only about
one acre of the land was entitled to
water rights. That was expressly
stated in their appraisement at that
time. The land conveyed by the Ter.
ritory consisted of three different
tracts aggregating little over forty
acres. These tracts were irregular in
shape and intermingled with private
titles-Within those tracts there were
small private tracts, and not enough
land to accommodate those who want
ed the lands.
: Fisher: I don't think that you need
to go into that any further.
Governor: Then there were the
lands of Hukiaaopihipau, in Hawaii.
There think the only question raised
was that the Land Commissioner did
not reply to the applicants. The facts
were. these. The application was
made on February "a, 1911. Its re-
ceipt was acknowledged February q,
1911. The Land Commissioner then
wrote to the plantation and ascer.
tanned when theD cane would be har
vested, on July 6, 1911, and not re-
ceiving reply, wrote again on Aug
ust 1, 1911. He received their reply,
dated August 4, 1911, showing in de-
Tail that most of the cane would not I
be harvested in 1912-this year. The
Land Commissioners then made al
in pencil to the effect
that the land should be surveyed for
nomesteads and opened up success
Ively as the cane came off. At the
same time, on August IA, 1911, he
wrote to the plantation that the land
would be withdrawn for homestead
purposes.
Fisher: That was ten days after
he date of their letter ? IL
E.. Governor: Yes. So far as the rec
)rds show he did not then reply to
he applicants and whether he made
my oral reply or not do not know
| reply. /.
lack of Information. Il
Fisher: 1 have found a good manyii
instances of that kind as we have
raveled about on the different ISL
Lnds. A good many people Interested
n homesteading, or prospective home
teading, have complained of this E
anne thing, and it has caused good
eal of criticism. Do you think they ,
ave usually gotten the information
hey asked for?
Governor: l think as a rule they
ave. l think that in a few cases.
ossibly three or four, it has for some
eason been overlooked.
Fisher: 1t seems to me there are a
God many more than two, three or
our cases, as l remember it. "a
Governor: l don't think there are a