Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-06-26


cult court, Honolulu, recent APP
pointee of the president is urging up
on the interior department to recon-
mend TO Congress division OF large
estate lands in Hawaii among many
small holders.
In a letter to Secretary of the In
terror Franklin K Lane. the circuit
tndge attacks the territorial land laws
and the administration of them. critl-
cjzes Governor Pinkham, politically
and otherwise, and threatens TO ask
for a public investigation by Congress
OF what he alleges are local condi-
tions.
= The letter was written in Honolulu
0ast january. The Star-Bulletin Sc
tfured a copy OF II from the interior de-
partment, where 1t is on file. Judge
Stuart this morning readily confirmed
the fact of having written the letter
and expressed the opinion that II 1t
were published some action might be
stirred up.
The letter in full is as follows:
Honolulu. Hawaii, January 8, 1915.
Hon. Franklin X. Lane.
Secretary of the Interior,
Washington, d. c.
Dear SIR
For nearly two years ] have been
trying to get homestead in Hawail,
and succeeded on the 29th day OF De-
cember, 1914, to certain extent, as
hereinafter stated.
In the latter part Of the year 1913,
the Editor of the New Freedom, on ac-
count of articles l had written for
that paper. called. your attention to
: me fearful state of the land laws OF
Hawaii. You answered by simply
mailing him a copy of the Act of May
q. 1910. AS this Act was too lengthy
10 be considered In a letter, end as |
did not wish to appear In print as crit,
s icising the views Of Democratic Of
fetal | replied by an impersonal ar
ticle, Jan. Z 1914, showing that the
Act OF May 9th did not cure the con-
fitions complained of: and that the
fault lay in the Hawaiian Laws, wpich
seemed to be enacted entirely for the
benefit of the large plantations. l.
wrote in no offensive spirit, and sent
YOU a copy particularly calling your
attention to the. matter, but you have
never taken any steps toward better
ing the conditions here for the home
steader do not believe th2t In the
last year there was one person from
the States who had been able to en-
ter a homestead in Hawaii. and do
not believe that any Hawaiian has
= been able to get a homestead of forty
acres. This does not conflict with the
! Governors report The Hawaiians
have in limited degree been able at
times to obtain from two to FIVE acre
tracts and even up to ten acres, but
the privilege has been so limited and
restricted as to be worse than useless.
Take. for consideration the last
drawing made in this country on the
2Sth days of December, 1914. A tract
Of some 230 acres was brought in,
that had been advertised over year
ago. and for some unaccountable rea-
son had been withdrawn This tract
was divided into % parcels, ranging
from about 10 to Ii acres, and the
lucky persons In the drawing had the
right to take two tracts IL they were
sadloinino." that is, IL persons could
take % out of the % tracts, leaving
one tract for the twelfth person and
nothing for the subsequent numbers.
There were 1S3 applicants for these
% homestead tracts. There would
have been q thousand had anyone sup
posed that there was any reasonable
6 chance to obtain home. | was num-
Der l3 on the list and had no oppor-
tunity whatever IL each party before
me took two tracts This they did so
far as they could, but / finally sue
ceeded in obtaining lot of IA acres,
being the refuse of the entire tract
and which has no road to II, for which
/ had to pay a little over $4,000 an
acre. i have offered to pay 1t in cash,
but up to this time the Commissioner
has not accepted it There were
ent when the lands were awarded.
There were many old Hawaiian men
and women who were seeking little
homes and were willing to pay the
outrageous prices that had been fixed
upon these lands. There we're poor
American citizens and other nationali,
ties embraced among the 1S3 appH.
cants. and l do not believe that there
was one of the number whose equity
was not greater than mine to these
lots. 1t was sad sight to see these
people turned away and one could not
help but ask why at least twenty
three Of them were not accommodated
with q lot apiece; instead of allowing
the most of the lucky persons to take
two lots each. There is no reason for
such a rule unless it is to deprive
worthy persons of lands that they so
much need.
At the time filed. there was a gen.