Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1912-10-08


as subsidiaries to our plantation thai
were formed prior to the Organic Act
One was engaged in the coffee bust
ness; the coffee business failed an6
they gradually turned the land into
planting cane. ] also wish to explain
that as to these land companies, that
were formed by Brewer & Company
in connection with Brewer & Com,
pany-that ever since 1890 Brewer &
Co, as a good investment of their
own have bought lands throughout the
islands which the plantations have
| leased from them. Brewer & Co. new
er bought these lands at the time with
the idea of selling them to the plan
tation. They bought them simply as
La good investment These lands have
increased very materially in value -
we paid small sums for good many
of them The directors decided that
whereas we have been agents and are
acting in their interest, the land we
bought should really belong to those
plantations.
Fisher: Your idea was to turn
them over at the actual
Ivers: At the actual cost to US at
that time. None of these plantations
own share of stock in Brewer & Co.
The five companies formed by Brewer
& Co. represented five plantations.
Fisher: Was the property divided
up and a. part assigned to each one OF
these corporations?
Ivers: The land had been bought
in the sphere of a certain plantation,
that it the land in the locality OF
each plantation was assigned to it.
Fisher: What | mean is this: Did
you organize recently a new corpora
ton to take over these particular
lands and only those lands, and an
other corporation to take over the
lands in another locality and only
those lands, or did you take all OF
your surplus lands and divide it up
arbitrarily?
Not 1000 Acres in All.
Ivers: The whole land collectively
would not amount to 1000 acres.
Fisher: So that the impression that
/ has been created that each of them
held a little below thousand acres
Ivers: That is entirely incorrect.
Fisher: So that we know they did
not quite fall within the class OF
those corporations that we spoke Of?
Ivers: | will admit that they were
subsidiary corporations.
Fisher: You could so far as this
law is concerned, have formed one
corpration?
Ivers: Brewer & Company is cor
pOration and it has held them all up
t. this time.
Thurston Gives kinney's Position.
Mr.. Thurston: There is one point
| intended to speak of-of the state
ment made to me by MIR. Kinney in
regard to obtaining evidence unlaw-
fully. | was away at the time and
when | returned | asked him and he
made a statement to me.
Fisher: | think it is fair for you
to state what he told you.
Thurston: | want to state in the
first instance that | have known Mr..
Kinney ever since he was knee nigh
tc the table there, and in my opinion
there was no more public spirited or
better man in this COMMUNICATING
. he udS NlISl ShN -
from others | will always give him the
benefit Of tie doubt. So much for Mr.
kinney's standing.
Why Kinney Acted.
When | asked HIN why he had done
this, which is on the face of it contrary
TO law, he made thi@ statement TO me
There was some years ago a prosecu
ton against man in this town for
violation of the laws, and the chief
! evidence which was necessary to the
government consisted of some private
papers. The prosecution got out a
statement and compelled him 70 get
these papers-they were to be liz ed
il the prosecution against him. tn"
court ruled that those papers could
rot be used against him as it would
he against the constitution to make q
man testify against himself In con
sc QuenCe, the persecution failed. Now
Mr.. Kinney simply referred to this as
being a fact facing him in his search