Ali’i / Chiefs / Governance | Page 101

October 28, 2017 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Aliʻi Letters Kalanimōku to Hiram Bingham October 28, 1826

Hawaiian Mission Houses Historic Site and Archives (Mission Houses) collaborated with Awaiaulu Foundation to digitize, transcribe, translate and annotate over 200-letters written by 33-Chiefs.

The letters, written between 1823 and 1887, are assembled from three different collections: the ABCFM Collection held by Harvard’s Houghton Library, the HEA Collection of the Hawaii Conference-United Church of Christ and the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society.

These letters provide insight into what the Ali‘i (Chiefs) were doing and thinking at the time, as well as demonstrate the close working relationship and collaboration between the aliʻi and the missionaries.

In this letter, Kalaimoku (Kalanimōku) writes to Rev. Hiram Bingham dismissing the blame placed on the missionaries for other foreigners’ misconduct. He encourages their goodness and their teachings and professes his own faith in God.

Kālaimoku, also known as Kalanimōku and William Pitt Kalanimōku, was a trusted advisor of Kamehameha I. During the travels of Liholiho and Kamāmalu to Great Britain, he co-ruled with Kaʻahumanu, maintaining a leadership role during the first reigning years of the new king, Liholiho’s younger brother, Kauikeaouli.

In part, the letter notes:

“Honolulu, Oahu October 28, 1826”

“Greetings to you, Mr. Bingham,”

“Here is my message to all of you, our missionary teachers. I am telling you that I do not see your wrongdoing. If I should see you to be wrong, I would tell you all.”

“No, you should all just be good.”

“Give us literacy and we will teach it; and give us the word of God, and we will heed it.”

“Our women are restricted, for we have learned the word of God.”

“Then foreigners come, doing damage to our land, foreigners of America and Britain.”

“Do not be angry, for it is we who are to blame for you being faulted, and not you foreigners.”

“Here is my message according to the words of Jehovah. I have given my heart to God and my body and my spirit. I have devoted myself to the church for Jesus Christ.”

“Have a look at my message, Mr. Bingham and company, and if you see it and wish to send my message to America, to our chief, that is up to you.”

“Greetings to our chief in America. Regards to him. From Kalaimoku”

Here’s a link to the original letter, its transcription, translation and annotation (scroll down):

https://hmha.missionhouses.org/files/original/48a090b14ab39c3e64644c9a03b6b1dd.pdf

On October 23, 1819, the Pioneer Company of American Protestant missionaries from the northeast US, led by Hiram Bingham, set sail on the Thaddeus for the Sandwich Islands (now known as Hawai‘i.) They arrived in the Islands and anchored at Kailua-Kona on April 4, 1820.

Over the course of a little over 40-years (1820-1863 – the “Missionary Period”,) about 180-men and women in twelve Companies served in Hawaiʻi to carry out the mission of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) in the Hawaiian Islands.

One of the earliest efforts of the missionaries, who arrived in 1820, was the identification and selection of important communities (generally near ports and aliʻi residences) as “stations” for the regional church and school centers across the Hawaiian Islands.

Hawaiian Mission Houses’ Strategic Plan themes note that the collaboration between Native Hawaiians and American Protestant missionaries resulted in the
• The introduction of Christianity;
• The development of a written Hawaiian language and establishment of schools that resulted in widespread literacy;
• The promulgation of the concept of constitutional government;
• The combination of Hawaiian with Western medicine, and
• The evolution of a new and distinctive musical tradition (with harmony and choral singing).

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Kalanimoku – Bingham – Not Seen Your Wrongdoing-1826-1

Kalanimoku – Bingham – Not Seen Your Wrongdoing-1826-2

William Pitt Kalanimoku (c. 1768–1827) was a military and civil leader of the Kingdom of Hawaii-Pellion

Hiram_Bingham-Morse

October 21, 2017 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

British View of the Islands in 1843

The following is a letter from the Earl of Aberdeen, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to William Miller, British Consul General for the Hawaiian (Sandwich) Islands, September 28, 1843 (as noted in the Report of the Historical Commission, Territory of Hawaii, 1925.)

Miller had just been appointed to this position. These instructions were given to him before his departure from England. It helps illustrate the policy of Great Britain toward the Hawaiian Islands at that time.

“The internal condition of the Sandwich Islands and their position with regard to Foreign Powers, and especially to Great Britain, are so peculiar that a few words of observation on my part may be required in order to enable you to form a correct judgment respecting the proposed policy of HM Govt, and the manner in which they would wish you to regulate your own conduct towards the Govt, of a Country so situated.”

“The Sandwich Islands are scarcely more than nominally governed by a Native Sovereign and native Chiefs. Citizens of the U. States are in fact the virtual Rulers and Directors of the Govt. The Constitution and the Laws are framed, and are administered chiefly by Americans; and American Missionaries in like manner direct the affairs of the Church, and keep, as it were, the consciences of the King, the Chiefs, and the native subjects.”

“It is obvious that the King and his native Councillors could of themselves have possessed little capacity for devising a Constitution or code of laws like those of the Sandwich Islands, and can have as little practical ability for administering them.”

“It must be fairly admitted that great credit is due to those American Missionaries who by their pious and unwearied labours first introduced the lights of Christianity and Civilization into those Islands …”

“… nor ought an equal share of credit to be withheld from those who, following up the advantages thus originally conferred by the Missionaries, have brought the Islanders, however imperfectly as yet, under subjection to a regular administrative system.”

“We have no right to entertain jealousy of the influence thus honourably acquired by the Americans amongst that people.”

“The changes effected by the Americans may have been somewhat over-hasty, considering the circumscribed intellectual condition of the people amongst whom they were introduced; but undoubted advantage has accrued to them from those changes.”

“It is certain, however, that the natives are, of themselves, incompetent to administer either their constitution or their laws. They must be, and are, practically administered by their Masters in Civilization.”

“The judges are, in part, Natives. The Juries are generally Americans. In fact all who are really engaged in carrying the laws into effect are not natives, but foreigners, and moreover foreigners from one country.”

“As such, they are of course liable to be swayed by the same feelings, whether of prejudices or prepossession, by which the generality of their countrymen are animated in their own country.”

“And on the other hand the same feelings, whether for good or for evil, are naturally liable to be directed against them by other foreigners in the Islands, It is sufficiently evident that a great jealousy has prevailed between the English and Americans established there.”

“It is difficult to say on which side the most embittered feelings have been exhibited; but it must be confessed that if on the side of the Americans a tendency to domineer and to avail themselves unfairly of their influence with the native Govt, has been not unfrequently visible …”

“… the conduct of the English residents has certainly not been marked either by prudence or by a spirit of conciliation. In fact it appears to have been as nearly as possible the reverse of what good sense and good policy would have dictated.”

“It is clear that it is not by openly striving against the dominant influence of the Americans that we can hope to combat it with effect.”

“The Americans, having in the first instance obtained a paramount controul over the natives by their religious efforts, and being both by their numbers, by the weight of established authority, and also by their landed acquisitions by marriage or otherwise, superior, in point of political and social position to other foreigners resident in the Islands, will continue, in spite of our efforts, to exercise that controul.”

“Under these circumstances our policy ought to be to seek to conciliate the real rulers of the Islands, not by any unbecoming subserviency, but simply by observing towards them a proper courtesy of demeanor, and by giving them fair credit for the good which they do.”

“At the same time we should seek, by our propriety of conduct, our fair-dealing, our steady observance of the laws, when justly administered, and our firm but temperate determination to insist upon their just administration, to inspire all persons, whether native or foreign, with confidence and respect.”

“If palpable injustice is done to a British subject, that injustice must be repaired without delay or subterfuge; and care should be taken to impress this necessity constantly on the minds of the Sovereign and his Chiefs, as well as on those persons in whose hands the Govt, may be practically placed.”

“But on no occasion should intemperate language or disrespectful demeanor be indulged in either towards the Chiefs or towards the subordinate officials of Govt.”

“By pursuing such a course of conduct HM Govt, have little doubt that they will, in a short time, cease to have! Complaints presented to them of outrages or acts of injustice done in the Sandwich Islands towards British Residents.”

“From what has been above said you will be enabled to form a clear conception of the principles on which it is wished that you should regulate your official conduct.”

“HM Govt, further think it desirable that you should apply yourself to every honorable means, to gain the ear and confidence of the Sovereign of the Country and of his most influential Advisers.”

“By so doing you may be enabled to obtain, without the necessity of official representation the correction, in embryo, of many an act, which, if not at once stop, might lead to altercation, and a disturbance of our mutual friendly relations.”

“When the British Residents see that the principal British Authority assumes a temperate and courteous tone and bearing towards the Sovereign and his Advisers they will not be long in following his lead.”

“We shall thus in due time substitute a kindly feeling and a spirit of good fellowship for those acrimonious and unconciliatory sentiments and demeanor which has so long prevailed on both sides, and to which, in great part, if not entirely, may be attributed the differences which have arisen between the two countries.”

This letter was written shortly after the Paulet Affair (when, on February 11, 1843, George Paulet raised the British flag and issued a proclamation annexing Hawai‘i to the British Crown.)

After five months of British rule, Queen Victoria, on learning the injustice done, immediately sent Rear Admiral Richard Darton Thomas to the islands to restore sovereignty to its rightful rulers. On July 31, 1843, the Hawaiian flag was raised again.

On November 28, 1843, the British and French Governments united in a joint declaration and entered into a formal agreement recognizing Hawaiian independence (Lord Aberdeen signed on behalf of Britain, French ambassador Louis Saint-Aulaire signed on behalf of France.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Downtown and Vicinity-Street_Names-Map-1843-over Google Earth

October 14, 2017 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

War Crimes?

The United Nations Commission for the Investigation of War Crimes (later renamed United War Crime Commission) was formed in 1943, following a declaration of the need for such by the three Allied superpowers, US, Britain and Russia.

It was set up to primarily: (1) investigate and record the evidence of war crimes, identifying where possible the individuals responsible and (2) report to the Governments concerned cases in which it appeared that adequate evidence might be expected to be forthcoming. (UNWCC History)

The UN War Crimes Commission was operational between 1943 and 1948 and played a vital role in preparation for the war crimes trials that followed the Second World War. (UN)

The International Criminal Court (ICC), at The Hague, Netherlands and formed as result of the Rome Statute in 1998, has jurisdiction over four main crimes: (1) genocide (specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group) …

… (2) crimes against humanity (large-scale attack against any civilian population); (3) grave breaches of the Geneva conventions (in the context of armed conflict); and (4) the crime of aggression (use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, integrity or independence of another State.) (ICC)

The ICC, not a United Nations organization, does not have its own police force or enforcement body; it relies on cooperation with countries worldwide for support.

The US was a party to the Rome Statute, including the ICC; however, in a communication received on May 6, 2002, the US informed the Secretary-General, “that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000.” (State Department)

The matter of war crime claims related to Hawai’i were recently addressed by the Hawai‘i Supreme Court – the Hawaii Supreme Court Publicly Censures Attorney for ‘War Crimes’ Accusations.

Click HERE to see press conference of local attorney accusing Hawai‘i court judges of war crimes.

A unanimous Order of the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, issued on May 1, 2017, publicly censured a local attorney for making “with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the allegation” accusations that a Judge committed “war crimes under international Conventions”.

In the Order, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court noted, “the allegations for which Respondent … faces discipline do not serve any discernible purpose within the underlying litigation and, hence, cannot be characterized as mere ‘zealous representation’ of the Respondent’s clients.”

“Nor do the allegations bear a rational relationship to any previous opinions of this or other courts of the State and, hence, are not good faith arguments for an extension of such precedent. … “

“In short, we conclude that the allegations serve no other purpose but to harass the presiding Judge by threatening him with dire consequences for his previous and subsequent rulings in the litigation.”

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the attorney’s allegations “‘imply a false assertion of fact’” which could “reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about their target” which are not true, and the charge of war criminal does, by its plain language, charge the Judge with “commission of a criminal offense.””

“[W]e conclude, by clear and convincing evidence, that the record supports the violations identified by the Disciplinary Board: specifically, that, on July 13, 2012, by filing the Notice of Protest and its attachments in the Third Circuit litigation presided over by the Judge in question …”

“… Respondent …, with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the allegation, accused the presiding Judge of committing war crimes under international Conventions and thereby filed a frivolous document that served no legal or practical purpose …”

“… in violation of Rule 3.1 of the Hawai’i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) (1994), harassed and embarrassed the Judge, in violation of HRPC Rule 3.5(b), engaged in conduct reasonably likely to disrupt the tribunal – and which did disrupt the tribunal – in violation of HRPC Rule 3.5(c), and made statements with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity concerning the integrity of the Judge, in violation of HRPC Rule 8.2.”

“In sum, in the words of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, (Respondent’s) accusations ‘erode public confidence without serving to publicize problems that justifiably deserve attention’ … As such, Respondent’s allegations are not protected speech.”

“We further conclude these allegations were made with a reckless disregard to their truth or falsity, and were not assertions a reasonable attorney, considered in light of all his professional functions, would make in the same or similar circumstances.” (SCAD-16-0000522; Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, May 1, 2017)

Click HERE for the Supreme Court decision.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals had similar language about the Kingdom claims. They note, “Our appellate courts have repeatedly held that claims involving the applicability of the Kingdom of Hawai’i laws are without merit.”

They cite the Hawai‘i Supreme Court ruling in ‘State v. Kaulia’, noting, “Kaulia appears to argue that he is immune from the court’s jurisdiction because of the legitimacy of the Kingdom government. In that regard, we reaffirm that ‘[w]hatever may be said regarding the lawfulness’ of its origins, ‘the State of Hawai‘i . . . is now a lawful government.’” (CAAP-12-0000144 and others)

In the Kauila case, Kaulia claimed to be a “foreign national to USA and State of Hawaii as a subject of the Kingdom of Hawaii.” The Hawai‘i Supreme Court noted, “Individuals claiming to be citizens of the Kingdom and not of the State are not exempt from application of the State’s laws.”

Adding, “Pursuant to HRS § 701-106 (1993),12 ‘the [S]tate’s criminal jurisdiction encompasses all areas within the territorial boundaries of the State of Hawai‘i.’ … The State charged Kaulia based on his conduct in Kona, County and State of Hawai`i. Thus Kaulia is subject to the State’s criminal jurisdiction in this case.”

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Aliiolani_Hale_2011_by_D_Ramey_Logan

October 11, 2017 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Boer War

Gold had been mined since the early 1870s but was discovered on the Witwatersrand, in the Transvaal, in 1886. Thousands of white and black South Africans were employed on the mines by 1890.

South Africa became the single biggest gold producer in the world and this meant great growth for the independent Boer governments.

The Transvaal now also became more prominent in international finance because the importance of gold as an international monetary system. Britain was the center of industry and trade in the world at the time and needed a steady supply of gold to maintain this position.

There were various political leaders with opposing views in power in different parts of South Africa during the 1890s. Paul Kruger was president of the Transvaal or South African Republic (SAR) and Cecil John Rhodes became the premier of the Cape Colony in 1890.

Rhodes was from Britain and had made his fortune in South Africa by mining diamonds. He was also a supporter of the British imperial plan to unite South Africa under British rule. Kruger was a supporter of Boer independence and the two leaders were in direct conflict with each other. (South African History)

“The Boers were Dutch farmers of the Orange Free State in southern Africa. Incensed over British farmers moving into their land, the Boers declared war against Britain. … The British Empire, not to be trifled with, rushed half a million troops into the area. The Boers, never more than a few thousand in number, fought back using guerilla tactics.” (Star Bulletin, May 26, 1981)

“South African War (aka the Anglo-Boer War, or simply the Boer War) (October 11, 1899 – May 31, 1902) remains the most terrible and destructive modern armed conflict in South Africa’s history.”

“It was an event that in many ways shaped the history of 20th Century South Africa. The end of the war marked the end of the long process of British conquest of South African societies, both Black and White”. (Gilliomee and Mbenga )

Great Britain battled (and defeated) two Boer states in South Africa: the South African Republic (Republic of Transvaal) and the Orange Free State. Britain was aided by its Cape Colony, Colony of Natal and some native African allies.

Prince Kūhiō was with the British during the war in South Africa. … but, first, some background …

Prince Kūhiō studied under the late Alatau Atkinson in Honolulu, going from the Royal School to Punahou College and later attending St. Matthew’s College at San Mateo, Calif. He then went to England, studying at the Royal Agricultural College and taking business courses. (Orr; Nellist)

“As a young man Kalākaua wanted him to take up a military career and he was offered commissions in the British army, but his wishes ran to another way, he desired to study law and he achieved his desire. … His tastes were not militaristic, his trend was
toward law making and governing.” (Maui News, January 10, 1922)

In 1895, following the overthrow of Queen Lili‘uokalani, Kūhiō took part in a counterrevolution led by Robert Wilcox against the Republic of Hawai‘i. (DHHL)

The prince was charged with misprision of treason and served his sentence of one year in prison. During his imprisonment, a Kauai chiefess, Elizabeth Kahanu Ka‘auwai, visited him each day.

After his release, the two married on October 8, 1896. Kūhiō and Kahanu left Hawai‘i on a self-imposed exile and traveled extensively through Europe. (DHHL)

“They remained away two years, during which time they visited many interesting places” (Hawaiian Star, May 28, 1904), “vowing never to return to a Hawai‘i that appeared inhospitable to Hawaiians.” (Star Bulletin, March 26, 1996)

“They went to South Africa (where the) Prince was given an opportunity of enjoying some big game hunting. (Hawaiian Star, May 28, 1904)

“(T)he prince was anxious to see some of the fighting. But the authorities always managed to keep him away from the scene of the sklirmish although they saw bullets flying from a distance.” (Star Bulletin, February 20, 1932)

“(D)uring the Boer war … Prince Kūhiō had some exciting experiences with the British in their engagements with the Boer forces. The prince was on a train that was attacked by the Boers. He met the late Cecil Rhodes and was entertained by Sir J. Somers Vine.” (Hawaiian Star, May 28, 1904)

Kūhiō returned to the Islands and got into politics. In 1900, the Kanaka Maoli (aboriginal Hawaiians) had formed their own party, called the Home Rule Party, through merging two organizations, Hui Aloha ‘Āina and Hui Kālai‘āina, who had worked together to support Queen Lili‘uokalani and oppose annexation. (Silva)

That year, the Home Rulers elected Robert Wilcox as Hawaiʻi’s first delegate to the US Congress. (However, on July 10, 1902, Prince Kūhiō split from the Home Rule Party, joined the Republican Party and won the Congressional seat in the election on November 4, 1902.) (After a decade of election losses, the Home Rule Party was disbanded after the elections of 1912.)

Jonah Kūhiō Kalaniana‘ole Piʻikoi died on January 7, 1922 of heart disease. He was given the last state funeral for an ali‘i; he is buried at Mauna ‘Ala, the Royal Mausoleum.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

boer-war-map

south-africa-map-1900

Kawananakoa, David, 1868-1908 and his brothers Edward Keliiahonui (1869-1887) and Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole (1871-1922)-PP-97-17-008

Kalanianaole, Jonah Kuhio, 1871-1922, in his military uniform-PP-97-1-031

Kalanianaole, Jonah Kuhio, 1871-1922, in prison uniform (1895) PP-97-1-032

Kuhio Wearing his campaign hat and shirt-PP-97-2-017

Kalanianaole, Jonah Kuhio, 1871-1922-wearing_Order_of_Kamehameha regalia-(HSA)-PP-97-2-008

JonahKuhioKalanianaole

U.S. Congressman Carter Glass, Lincoln Holstein (1865-1943), Kuhio, Congressman Phillip Campbell of Kansas, and Honolulu mayor John C. Lane (1872-1958)-PP-9

October 7, 2017 by Peter T Young 2 Comments

‘Native Tenants’

“Kamehameha I was the founder of the kingdom, and to him belonged all the land from one end of the islands to the other, though it was not his own private property. It belonged to the chiefs and people in common, of whom Kamehameha I was the head, and had the management of the landed property.” (Constitution 1840)

“When the Islands were conquered by Kamehameha I, he followed the example of his predecessors, and divided out the lands among his principal warrior chiefs, retaining, however, a portion in his hands, to be cultivated or managed by his own immediate servants or attendants.”

“Each principal chief divided his lands anew, and gave them out to an inferior order of chiefs, or persons of rank, by whom they were subdivided again and again; after passing through the hands of four, five or six person; from the King down to the lowest class of tenants.”

“All these persons were considered to have rights in the lands, or the productions of them. The proportions of these rights were not very clearly defined, but were nevertheless universally acknowledged.”

“The tenures were in one sense feudal, but they were not military, for the claims of the superior on the inferior were mainly either for produce of the land or for labor, military service being rarely or never required of the lower orders.”

“All persons possessing landed property, whether superior landlords, tenants or sub-tenants, owed and paid to the King not only a land tax, which he assessed at pleasure, but also, service which was called for at discretion, on all the grades, from the highest down.”

“They also owed and paid some portion of the productions of the land, in addition to the yearly taxes. They owed obedience at all times. All these were rendered not only by natives, but also by foreigners who received lands from Kamehameha I and Kamehameha II, and by multitudes still alive …”

“… of this there are multitudes of living witnesses, and a failure to render any of these has always been considered a just cause for which to forfeit the lands.”

“It being therefore fully established, that there are but three classes of persons having vested rights in the lands—1st, the Government, 2nd, the landlord (Chiefs and Konohiki,) and 3rd, the tenant (Makaʻāinana,) it next becomes necessary to ascertain the proportional rights of each.”

“Happily, evidence on this point is not wanting, though it may be the most difficult one to settle satisfactorily of any connected with land claims. The testimony elicited is of the best and highest kind.”

“It has been given immediately by a large number of persons, of a great variety of character, many of them old men, perfectly acquainted with the ancient usages of the country; some were landlords, and some were tenants.” (Land Commission Principles, adopted by Legislature October 26, 1846)

“The title of the Hawaiian government in the lands so acquired and so bona fide owned, as in the preceding sections set forth, shall be deemed in law to be allodial, subject to the previous vested rights of tenants and others, which shall not have been divested by their own acts, or by operation of law.” (Laws adopted 1846)

“Wherefore, there was not formerly, and is not now any person who could or can convey away the smallest portion of land without the consent of the one who had, or has the direction of the kingdom. These are the persons who have had the direction of it from that time down, Kamehameha II Kaahumanu I and at the present time Kamehameha III.”

“These persons have had the direction of the kingdom down to the present time, and all documents written by them, and no others are the documents of the kingdom.”

“The kingdom is permanently confirmed to Kamehameha III and his heirs, and his heir shall be the person whom he and the chiefs shall appoint, during his lifetime, but should there be no appointment, then the decision shall rest with the chiefs and House of Representatives.” (Constitution 1840)

“‘God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth,’ in unity and blessedness. God has also bestowed certain rights alike on all men and all chiefs, and all people of all lands.”

“These are some of the rights which he has given alike to every man and every chief of correct deportment; life, limb, liberty, freedom from oppression, the earnings of his hands and the productions of his mind, not however to those who act in violation of the laws.”

“Protection for the People declared. The above sentiments are hereby published for the purpose of protecting alike, both the people and the chiefs of all these islands, while they maintain a correct deportment, that no chief may be able to oppress any subject, but that the chiefs and people may enjoy the same protection, under one and the same law.”

“Protection is hereby secured to the persons of all the people, together with their lands, their building lots, and all their property, while they conform to the laws of the kingdom, and nothing whatever shall be taken from any individual except by express provision of the laws.”

“Whatever chief shall act perseveringly in violation of this constitution, shall no longer remain a chief of the Hawaiian Islands, and the same shall be true of the governors, officers, and all land agents.”

“But if any one who is deposed should change his course, and regulate his conduct by law, it shall then be in the power of the chiefs to reinstate him in the place he occupied, previous to his being deposed.” (Declaration of Rights, 1839)

In 1848, King Kamehameha III responded to increasing economic pressure from foreigners who sought to control land by fundamentally changing the land tenure system to a westernized paper title system.

The lands were formally divided among the king and the chiefs, and the fee titles were recorded in the Māhele book. Lands granted in the Māhele were granted “subject to the rights of native tenants,” usually tenant farmers who already worked and resided on portions of those lands.

In 1850, a law was passed allowing these “native tenants” to claim fee simple title to the lands they worked. Those who claimed their parcel(s) successfully acquired what is known as a kuleana.

In the years that have passed since the Māhele, many of the large parcels initially granted to chiefs have changed hands through formal legal transfers of title.

Deeds executed during the Māhele conveying land contained the phrase “ua koe ke kuleana o na kānaka,” or “reserving the rights of all native tenants,” in continuation of the reserved tenancies which characterized the traditional Hawaiian land tenure system. (Garavoy)

Contemporary sources of law, including the Hawaii Revised Statutes, the Hawaii State Constitution, and case law interpreting these laws protect six distinct rights attached to the kuleana and/or native Hawaiians with ancestral connections to the kuleana.

These rights are:
(1) reasonable access to the land-locked kuleana from major thoroughfares;
(2) agricultural uses, such as taro cultivation;
(3) traditional gathering rights in and around the ahupua‘a;
(4) a house lot not larger than 1/4 acre;
(5) sufficient water for drinking and irrigation from nearby streams, including traditionally established waterways such as ‘auwai; and
(6) fishing rights in the kunalu (the coastal region extending from beach to reef).

The 1850 Kuleana Act also protected the rights of tenants to gain access to the mountains and the sea and to gather certain materials.

The Kuleana Act did not allow the makaʻāinana to exercise other traditional rights, such as the right to grow crops and pasture animals on unoccupied portions of the ahupua’a. The court’s interpretation of the act prevented tenants from making traditional use of commonly cultivated land. (MacKenzie)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Hale_Pili-Kalihiwai-(ksbe)