Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1917-08-06
LETTERS
Mn. MOORE ON THE LAND LAW
Editor Honolulu star-Bulletin.

Dear Sir: According to your issue
Of July IS, Land Commissioner Riven-
burgh has emphatically denied that
the bill introduced in congress (h. b.
1922 was fostered by the island sugar
interests.
Now the essential point about this
bill is that the power OF the people
to compel the officials to homestead
government land as now contained in
the Organic act. is to be taken away
Homesteading is to be forced over to
the lands not suited for cane, and the
cane lands are to be leased without
the homestead withdrawal clause, for
long terms to the plantations. The
bill may not provide just that, but
that is its object. The bill has the
same purpose as had senate resolu-
ton II, which was defeated by the
house. The sugar interests would gain
an immense advantage at the ex-
pense of the ultimate welfare OF Ha-
wall il this bill were to become law,
and the sugar men in the senate voted
solidly for it.
Remember these circumstances. h.
B. 1928, Homestead Lease with Rem
tai. which was introduced to prevent
fake" demonstrating, encourage le-
ultimate demonstrating, secure a c1tl-
zen rural population and provide rev.
enue from the public land, was de-
feated by the senate without argu-
ment against 1t, but to make way for
senate resolution IA. Although II. b.
1913 was introduced early in the SEES
sion, remember how this senate res
olution IA was sprung very late in the
session. Remember how the senate
killed H. B. "a, the farm loan act, the
companion bill to H. B. 1913, the two
of which in operation would have Sc
cured legitimate demonstrating OF the
cane lands, and broken the hold OF
the sugar interests and the money
lenders on the small farmer and home
steader. Remember the announce
ments as to the land commissioner
| vacation trip" Remember that no
news of this H. B. 4722 (senate reso-
luton IA under a new name) was sent
to the islands or allowed to get about
in the islands before the public hear
ing of the committee on territories
at which the land commissioner ap-
peared.
| submit that these facts, with all
the unsavory odor Of the parliamen-
tary tactics used in the senate and
the secrecy surrounding the visit OF
the commissioner to Washington, con-
stituted appearances warranting what
said. II our officials want no er-
roneous conclusions drawn, let them
be open and above board in their do.
ings.
But let us not allow the real is
sue to be overloaded by personal
matter. Put me down as anything
bad you please to call me, but do not
allow the following facts to be over
looked:
a. There is a move on foot to take
away from the people the power to
compel the demonstrating Of the pub
lie land.
b. There is a move on foot to lease
the best agricultural land in the ter
ritory, still owned by the government
to plantations for terms as long as 70
years, with no chance for any kind OF
homesteaders, even the best, to get
on that land for generation.
c. Those back of this movement,
whoever they are, are clouding the
real issue and befogging the public
by advancing certain things that are
not true, in this connection, for eX-
ample:
1t is contended and was so stated
by the commissioned at Washington,
that diversified agriculture must be
practised in order to have legitimate
homesteading-the implication being
that cane land is not suited for home
stealing so we'll as land where miscel-
laneous crops only could be grown.
There is not particle of substance In
that. Under proper regulations and
demonstrating conditions legitimate
demonstrating can be practised on cane
land and on other land, and under
the present conditions and the lack
of enforcement Of what regulations
we do have, fake demonstrating will
be practised on both kinds, Any
homesteader with sense will grow that
crop which is most profitable, having
due regard to the permanent fertility |
of his soil. The United States, through |
what amounts to sort Of subsidy
the tariff--has made cane growing the |
surest and most profitable crop here, |
and legitimate homesteaders nave,
therefore, a better chance cI cane |
land than on any other land
Again, it is contended that le,
to prevent fake homest@adiL
have a board to lass -
cants. Well, let us grant +: As
of the argument, that VIC s.. e.
do in New Zealand. h2ul"" oE
that If and were Eomcst"aG. ~
under the terms of II. p. = -"
would be no need Of the ::
none but legitimate he; o. g., g."
would take up the propositirH. I" Il,
has that got to do with takir% l.. |
power to compel demonstrating Of tls
public land away from the Peapie?
Or, with leasing land irrevocab!y -
for a generation? We can
have the board to pass upon appll-
cants, If it is thought to be a good
thing, without changing the Organic
act.
Again, It is contended that we mus
lease the land irrevocably to the plan
tations to get money to meet the
bonded debt. There isn't a shadow
81 truth in that contention. We can
homestead the land and still deriye II