Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1917-11-13
CONTINUED from page y

Question" efficiently covers the pros
and cons of the question and then
runs up against the same old stone
wall that has been the barrier to a
solution of the problem for many
years past, viz: reconciliation of d.
vergent opinion. Giving Iny personal
views only, do not believe the sugar
interests are opposed to the home
stead idea or principle, If applied in
practical and reasonable manner.
1t does, however, break the heart or
the sugar man when It is sought to
apply homestead laws in a way cal
culated to break down an industry
that has been fifty years in the max
ing and today constitutes the INDUS
trial foundation upon which the pres.
ent prosperity rests-or at least ~9o
per cent of it.
Prior to our annexation to the
United States, the method for de-
veloping public lands suitable LOT
agriculture. at that time lying waste,
was to lease them out for long terms
at moderate rentals, in order to IN
duce industrial enterprise to- invest
CAPITAL in the opening up and utfil'
Za1lOn OIL dIdulS
less than a negligible number OF In
dividuals with either inclination or
means to undertake this very consul
cradle task; those that did under
take it in an individual capacity went
bankrupt and the financial 1nstltu-
lions behind them were obnged 10
make further large investment OF
funds to save what they had already
yentured. AS time passed on, these
leased public lands devoted to rice
and sugar cane became highly valu-
able, until today they have a cash
value of from 500 to $500 per acre,
according to local conditions of water
supply. fertility, etc, and constitute
most lucrative and probably the
most valuable asset of the territory,
very substantial factor in our ter
ritorial credit. IT, ~
The Real Question g." 81
The burning question" on this
subject, therefore, is something like
this: Should these highly developed
lands of established value, the leases
of which are now expiring, be cut
I'D and sold to a demonstrating class
at nominal price of thirty to forty
dollars per acre, the proceeds or the
sale to be applied to construction or
roads and other improvements on the
land for the benefit of the purchaser?
Or should these lands be held by, the
territory as a revenue source for the
benefit of ALL the, people? r.
L believe the true principle of our
national system, of opening up public
lands for settlement" is to induce the
people to go out into unsettled and
undeyeloped territory, become the pio-
neer, and for his labor and effort in
developing the resources of the coun-
try, our government says to the
settler "the land is yours; you have
earned it, and the country benefits
from what you have done" may
not be fully Informed on the subject
but have never heard of any in
stance where public property of de-
veIoped market value has been opened
up for settlement and assigned as
ltomesteads at nominal figures.
Opening Up Land of High Market
Value .-.,..... <,
So far as know, it is only ia
Hawaii that the government sells
land worth $500 per acre to the home
Steader at $40 per acre, which to me
looks like taking $50 per acre out
of the public treasury and handing
1t 20 an individual for his personal
use and benefit. In an altruistic way
it may be argued IN extenuation of
this apparently extraordinary state
of affairs that the settler or home
steader is worth this premium, but
IN the. progress made to date in open
ing the public lands as homesteads
in Hawaii does not reflect or confirm
any such contention. The high value
OF these properties, in itself, destroysl
their value as homesteads in the true
sense, - tha alton Of the set.l