The Hawaiian gazette., 1912-05-21
DECISION MOVES
HILO TRIBUNE
EDITOR VOICES ATTfrupn or ma.
VAN CRY TOWARD HnNnnn
SON HoMEaTnkp CASE.

While rejoicing In the supreme
court e decision in the Henderson home
stealing case % dnal blew 20 the
fake homcstcadets, the editor Of the
Hilo Tribune IN a lengthy editorial de
plotes the fact that the court q decision
still fails to define the terms Of the
homestead regulations which, according
to the Hilo mans judgment, are still
full Of loopholes for the man who would
evade the law to wriggle through, and
that the court may at any time inter
pref any Of the loose jviuted clauses
Of the homestead law in such a fashion
that it will ieopardize the honest home
steader's tenure of his property and
discourage further homcsteTling. In
full the Hilo scribe 3 opinions are as
follows.
That the decision OF the supreme
court in the Alfred RRnnie Henderson
case, rather the results thereof, should
be welcomed inasmuch as il is ex-
poeted TO act as sure death to all 'fake
homesteading, can easily be under
stood. 1t is hard TO see how any fair
minded man, as matter of fact, any
one who does not himself wish to be
fake homesteadern can be other
wise than in sympathy with the an
nounced scheme of the Governor, broad
ly speaking, TO see to 1t that the gov
eminent lands are given out to bona
fide settlers, tillers of the soil who wish
to make thereon homes for themselves
and their progeny.
While it hopes that the administra-
tion will be able to carry through its
fight against fake homesteading,
the Tribune can not Join in that hearty
chorus of praise which the decision
has occasioned in Honolulu. This may
be due to the fact that we, who are
ON the ground, can not take the view
generally prevailing in Honolulu, that
the settlers are a lot of designing black
guards who are forever trying to beat
the law and the government The fault
lies. very manifestly, in the law. The
settlers were quite apparently merely
trying to take advantage of poor law,
as has been done by number of emf
nently respectable and prominent peo'
pie whom Governor Frear would not
though the circumstances be the same
, venture TO describe as fakes.
When the first news of the decision
reached Hilo. it was stated by the Ho-
nolulu press that one particularly valu'
able feature thereof lay in the fact
, that it clearly defined and interpreted
! the homestead law. 1t was therefore q
, disappointment to learn, when the mai
a of Wednesday brought the full text OF
, the decision, that the document, faI
! from defining the law, made its con
! structiOn a matter so indefinite and un
! certain that the best attorney would
be absolutely unable to define Just what
9 does and what does not constitute {
: compliance with the statute.
!. Take, for instance, the residenc'
clause The law gives a certain periot
during which the settler must maintain
his home on the land. Henderson LIVED
on his lot during the two years pre-
scribed in his case. He moved away
from it Immediately after the expira
ton of his term. This the court say
shows his intent to beat the law. Thi
is held against him. But if Henderson
i. had lived on the place one day NOR,
than was necessary would that hay'
satisfied the COURT If he had live
there two days longer, two weeks long
err, two months longer, would that hav
servedH Under the ruling where is tn
L time limit How, in the name of com
|
q what is to be the period of his resi-
dence, when he may not take the plail
words of the statute for it9
o This instance alone shows that tn
IS decision, instead of clearly defining tn
d intent and meaning of the statute, ha
a made it a matter of hazard and guess
- work to determine what constitute flu
d fillment of the conditions, whereas
heretofore, one had supposed tina
N where the law made a definite state
ment, this could not be legislated ou
of existence by even the supreme couri
% Under such an Interpretation of tn
% law even, the most well-meaning settle
d might well hesitate to take up Ian
r, under the land act. AS matter 0
e. fact, on account of the uncertaint
A. with which it envelops everything, til
lie decision is likely to prevent the tai
d ing up of government land by fake
lie and bona fide settler alike. There ma
'e be found not a few who believe tina
n this is the real aim of the admins
10 tration.
z In discussing a decision of law, espt
10 cially where it has been written by ON
SO learned in the law as is the chic
justice, the layman is, by necessity, a
disadvantage. There are, however,
few points of the decision which ma
profitably be discussed from the stand
point of common sense, rather tina
that of the law, the two being, III
fortunately, not synonymous.
Thus we find that early in the dec
n sion the unequivocal statement is mad
4 that Grand in the initial applicatio
U for taking up of the land was not a
legged, and no issue as to that is il
volved." Still, further ON, the dec
/. sion holds it against the settler tina
"the intention and good faith insepal
ID ably involved in the idea of the mair
ID tenance of a hume are not present.
IN How lack of good faith may be gel
a name where the issue of fraud is nc
involved may be clear to an eminen
- legal mind. To the layman it is not.
9. The court states further that it
,, led to "belieye that the appellee di
{. not spend as many nights at Kaiwil
Il. 4.