Images of Old Hawaiʻi

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Poʻolua

Poʻolua is literally broken down as Poʻo (head) and lua (two) and refers to a child who has two fathers (the child is sired by other than the husband, but he is accepted by both the husband and the sire.)

A child said to be poʻolua, “that is, a child of two fathers, was considered a great honor by chiefs of that period.” (Luomala)

Kamehameha has been referred to as poʻolua (shared, two-headed) son of Keōua and Kahekili by his mother Kekuʻiapoiwa.  (VanDyke)

Kamakau references Kamehameha was born at Kokoiki in Kohala.  His father was Keōua, younger brother of Kalaniʻōpuʻu, and his mother was Kekuʻiapoiwa, daughter of Kekela and Haʻae, both of whom belonged to families of chiefs.

Kamakau explains that it was the custom from ancient times among the chiefs of Hawaiʻi for the chief of one island to give a child to the chief of another island. This is the reason why Kahekili has often been called the father of Kamehameha, for chiefs of Hawaii and Maui were closely related.  (Kamakau)

Kamehameha, who had always thought that Chief Keōua of the island of Hawaiʻi was his natural father until a few years after he conquered all the islands but Kauaʻi.  Dibble notes that when Keōua, the father of Kamehameha, died, he commended his son to the care of Kalaniʻōpuʻu, who received him, and treated him as his own child.

Per Kamakau’s account, in 1802, Kamehameha, on hearing that Chief Kameʻeiamoku was dying at Lāhainā, went to him.  Kameʻeiamoku had attended Kamehameha since his boyhood and was one of his four Kona Uncles who had engineered his rise to power and made him king.  Kameʻeiamoku (on his deathbed) said to Kamehameha, “I have something to tell you: Kahekili was your father, you were not Keōua’s son. Here are the tokens that you are the son of Kahekili.”  (Kamakau)

Kamehameha responded, “Strange that you should live all this time and only when dying tell me that I am Kahekili’s son! Had you told me this before, my brothers need not have died; they could have ruled Maui while I ruled Hawaii.”    (Kamakau)

Kameʻeiamoku answered, “That is not a good thought; had they lived there would have been constant warfare between you, but with you alone as ruler the country is at peace.”    (Kamakau)

Kahekili’s age is not accurately known, but as by all native accounts he was the reputed father of Kamehameha I.  (Fornander)

“Kamehameha was the reputed son of Keōua otherwise called Kalanikupuapaikalaninui, a younger half-brother of Kalaniopuʻu, king of Hawaiʻi. It is said, however, that Kamehameha was the real son of Kahekili, king of Maui and that Kahekili gave him the name of his brother which was Kamehameha.”   (Dibble)

Kalākaua notes, “To this record of the tangled relationships of the chiefly families of the group at that period may be added … that Kahekili, the mōʻi of Maui, was the real father of Kamehameha; and in proof of the latter the acts and admissions of Kahekili are cited.”

When Kamehameha prepared an invasion in east Maui, Kahekili sent his younger brother, Alapaʻi, with the following orders: “Go, and bestow our kingdom upon our son; and if he will receive it, well; but if he does not recognize me as his father and will not respect the gift, but insists upon war; then, tell him that both he and his soldiers shall die in their youth, before the going down of the sun.”  (Dibble)

“If, indeed he shall listen to my request, then, say to him, ‘Wait, till the black tapa, shall cover me and my funeral rites shall be performed, then, come and receive his kingdom, without the peril of war,’ – for indeed, he is my son, and from me he received his name Kamehameha after that of my elder brother.” (Dibble)  Receiving the message, Kamehameha delayed his invasion.

Some say that Kekuʻiapoiwa had a liaison with Kahekili (ruler of Maui) and from this union was born Kamehameha.  Though Kahekili was thought to be his biological father, he was raised by his parents (and was considered the son of Kekuʻiapoiwa and Keōua.)

After Kahekili died, Fornander had an interesting perspective related to the relationships of the parties.  Fornander notes, “Kameʻeiamoku and his twin-brother Kamanawa secretly took Kahekili’s body away and hid it in one of the caves at Kaloko in North Kona, Hawaii.”

Kameʻeiamoku and Kamanawa were the children of Kekaulike of Maui, and thus half-brothers of Kahekili.  The twins (Kameʻeiamoku and Kamanawa) were Chiefs from the Kohala and North Kona districts and were uncles of and his counselors in the wars to unite the islands.

This relationship receives further confirmation from the native legends when they relate that, on learning the birth of Kamehameha, Kahekili sent these two sons of his father Kekaulike to Hawaiʻi to be and act as “Kahus” to Kamehameha.  (Fornander)

“In no other way can the otherwise singular fact be explained that two of Kamehameha’s oldest and most prominent and trusted councilor chiefs, during a time of what may be called suspended hostilities, should have repaired from Hawaii to Oahu for the purpose of securing and safely hiding (Huna-kele) the bones of Kamehameha’s political rival; nor the otherwise equally inexplicable fact that they should have been permitted by Kalanikūpule, Kahekili’s son and successor, to carry their design into effect.”  (Fornander)

Under the social system of the old regime, and of time-hallowed custom, Kamehameha would have had no power to prevent those chiefs from executing their pious errand, and Kalanikūpule would have had no motive to mistrust their honesty when resigning to them his father’s remains; and a breach of trust on their part would have consigned them to an infamy of which Hawaiian history had no precedent, and so deep, that the Hawaiian language would not have had a word detestable enough wherewith to express it.  (Fornander)

“He was the reputed and accepted son of Keōua, the half-brother of Kalaniʻōpuʻu, although it was believed by many that his real father was Kahekili, mōʻi of Maui. But, however this may have been, he was of royal blood, and was destined to become not only the king of Hawaiʻi, but the conqueror and sovereign of the group. This chief was Kamehameha.”  (Kalākaua)

Kamehameha, through the assistance of the Kona “Uncles” (Keʻeaumoku, Keaweaheulu, Kameʻeiamoku & Kamanawa (the latter two ended up on the Island’s coat of arms;)) succeeded, after a struggle of more than ten years, in securing to himself the supreme authority over that island (and later, the entire Hawaiian Islands chain.)

The image shows Kamehameha (drawn by Choris in 1816.)  

© 2026 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Ties to the Santa Fe

While small gravity and mule-powered rails popped up here and there in the eastern United States, it was the coming of the steam locomotive that truly allowed railroads to prosper.

In August 1829, Horatio Allen tested an English-built steamer named the Stourbridge Lion in Pennsylvania; by the time of the Civil War there were more than 60,000 miles of railroad in the country, by the 1870s, the Transcontinental Railroad stretched all the way to California and there were more than 190,000 –miles of rail at the beginning of the 20th century.

During the height of the industry, commonly referred to as the ‘Golden Age’ from the late 19th century through the 1920s there were more than 254,000 miles of railroad in service.

The expanding rail system needed material to tie the rails – then, in 1907, the ‘Santa Fe’ came to the Islands.

“Among the passengers for Hawaii on the Kīnaʻu yesterday were EO Faulkner (head of the tie and lumber department of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad) has come to this Territory to investigate the ʻōhiʻa ties”. (Pacific Commercial Advertising, September 25, 1907)

The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (distinctively known as the Santa Fe) was founded by Cyrus K Holiday in Kansas in 1859. A line that reached from Kansas to California and from Kansas to the Gulf of Mexico was the vision of Holiday.

The desire to tap into the cotton and cattle markets in Texas combined with the promise of Texas as a market for Kansas wheat led the Santa Fe to seek an entry into markets in Texas and the Gulf of Mexico. (American Rails)

Before he left the Islands, Faulkner “signed a contract with the Hawaiian Mahogany Lumber Company which will mean the exportation of 90,000,000-board feet of ʻōhiʻa to the mainland within the next five years.”

“While the representatives of their lumber company are unwilling to state the exact price obtained for their lumber under the contract, the fact was obtained that it was between $2,500,000 and $3,000,000.” (Hawaiian Gazette, October 11, 1907)

To fulfill the agreement, “The ties will all be handled by the Hilo railroad. The next work to be done will be making a start on the new mill in Puna and we will also build a railroad, connecting with the main line at Pahoa, and running some four miles into the forest eventually.”

“It will run through the ʻōhiʻa forests which skirt the koa, and thus enable us to reach the koa property easily.” (AN Campbell, Henry Waterhouse Co; Pacific Commercial Advertiser, September 25, 1907)

“The development of the Hawaiian lumber industry stands out preeminent, through the signing in October 1907 of a contract between the Hawaiian Mahogany Lumber Company and the Santa Fe Railway System to supply during the next five years …” (Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Annual Report, 1908)

“According to the terms of the contract the local company is to furnish 500,000 ties six by eight inches and eight feet in length, each year for five years, the same to be delivered at such Coast ports as shall be designated by the railroad company.”

“In addition to this they shall deliver each year 500 sets of switch ties, which are heavier than the regular tie and vary in length from 10 to 22 feet.” (Hawaiian Gazette, October 11, 1907)

“Prior to this contract – in June 1907 – one schooner load of 13,000 ʻōhiʻa ties was sent to San Francisco. Several good-sized orders for ʻōhiʻa ties and ʻōhiʻa piling for use in the Territory have also been filled by the Hawaiian Mahogany Lumber Company.” (Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Annual Report, 1908)

Hawaiian Mahogany Lumber Company (also called Pāhoa Lumber Mill) began in 1907 (owned by James B Castle.) By September 1908, the company was operating a lumber mill in Pāhoa.

A narrow gauge railroad was built from Glenwood to the saw-mill in the woods back of the Volcano House, the mill itself has been erected and some of the machinery installed. Trees were felled in the forest, cut into logs and hauled in to the mill yard.

Most of the ties were to be cut in the Puna District on the homestead lots above Olaʻa, on lands of the Puna Plantation that were being cleared for cane, and on other lands in Puna on which rubber will be planted. The ties will be shipped from Hilo by steamers and sailing vessels, the first shipment being sometime in the spring of 1908.

Between 1909 and 1910, Pāhoa Lumber Mill have lumbered something over 1000 acres. In 1911, the Pāhoa Lumber Mill sought more land for logging. However, by 1914, the Division of Forestry notes that the Pahoa Lumber Mill “has barely reached the section set apart as the Puna Forest Reserve…” (Division of Forestry Annual Report, 1914)

In January 5, 1910 Lorrin A Thruston and Frank B. McStocker of the Hawaiian Development Co. Ltd. appeared before Marston Campbell, Commissioner of Public Lands in Honolulu, to secure rights to log a tract of government lands in Puna.

In January 1913, a fire devastated the Pāhoa Lumber Company mill, and that same year the mill changed its name to Hawaiʻi Hardwood Company. According to government records, the Hawaiian Development Company Ltd. was a successor to the Hawaiian Mahogany Lumber Company (Hawaiian Forester and Agriculturalist)

The contract with the Santa Fe Railway System was never fulfilled. The Division of Forestry noted that by 1914, few ‘ʻōhiʻa was being sold for railroad ties after it was realized that the ‘ʻōhiʻa wood ties did not last in the extreme conditions of the southwest.

Likewise, “increasing attention is being paid to finding a market for ʻōhiʻa for uses of higher tirade. Especially is an effort being made to introduce ʻōhiʻa as flooring …”

“… a use to which the firm, close texture of the wood and its handsome color lend themselves admirably. The waste from the ʻōhiʻa mills (slabs, etc.) is sold for firewood, not a little of it being shipped to Honolulu.” (Report of the Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry, 1911) (Lots of information here is from Uyeoka.)

© 2026 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

The Apology & the Supreme Court

On March 31, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court and rendered a decision on a case between the State of Hawaiʻi and OHA relating to the transfer of ceded lands.

In that decision, the US Supreme Court discusses the 1993 ‘Apology’ Resolution, as well as makes references to Hawaiian Sovereignty. The following are quotes from the US Supreme Court decision:

“In 1893, ‘[a] so-called Committee of Safety, a group of professionals and businessmen, with the active assistance of John Stevens, the United States Minister to Hawai‘i, acting with the United States Armed Forces, replaced the [Hawaiian] monarchy with a provisional government.’ ‘That government sought annexation by the United States’ (Newlands Resolution).”

“Pursuant to the Newlands Resolution, the Republic of Hawai‘i ‘cede[d] absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind’ and further ‘cede[d] and transfer[red] to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, Government, or Crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the Government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto appertaining’ (hereinafter ceded lands).”

“The Newlands Resolution further provided that all ‘property and rights’ in the ceded lands ‘are vested in the United States of America.’” “Two years later, Congress established a government for the Territory of Hawai‘i. … The Organic Act reiterated the Newlands Resolution and made clear that the new Territory consisted of the land that the United States acquired in ‘absolute fee’ under that resolution.”

“In 1959, Congress admitted Hawai‘i to the Union (hereinafter Admission Act). Under the Admission Act, with exceptions not relevant here, ‘the United States grant[ed] to the State of Hawai‘i, effective upon its admission into the Union, the United States’ title to all the public lands and other public property within the boundaries of the State of Hawai‘i, title to which is held by the United States immediately prior to its admission into the Union.’”

“Hawai‘i state law also authorizes the State to use or sell the ceded lands, provided the proceeds are held in trust for Hawaiian citizens. In 1993, Congress’ joint Apology Resolution “apologize[d]” for this country’s role in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy, and declared that nothing in the resolution was ‘intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.’”

“In 1993, Congress enacted a joint resolution ‘to acknowledge the historic significance of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, to express its deep regret to the Native Hawaiian people, and to support the reconciliation efforts of the State of Hawai‘i and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians.’ Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, … (hereinafter Apology Resolution).”

“Turning to the merits, we must decide whether the Apology Resolution ‘strips Hawai‘i of its sovereign authority to sell, exchange, or transfer’ the lands that the United States held in “absolute fee” and “grant[ed] to the State of Hawai‘i, effective upon its admission into the Union”. We conclude that the Apology Resolution has no such effect.”

“The Apology Resolution did not strip Hawai‘i of its sovereign authority to alienate the lands the United States held in absolute fee and granted to the State upon its admission to the Union.”

“The resolution’s first substantive provision uses six verbs, all of which are conciliatory or precatory. Specifically, Congress ‘acknowledge[d] the historical significance’ of the monarchy’s over-throw, ‘recognize[d] and commend[ed] efforts of reconciliation’ with native Hawaiians, ‘apologize[d] to [n]ative Hawaiians’ for the overthrow, ‘expresse[d] [Congress’s] commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow,’ and ‘urge[d] the President … to also acknowledge [those]ramifications’.”

“Such terms are not the kind that Congress uses to create substantive rights – especially those that are enforceable against the cosovereign States.”

“The Apology Resolution’s second and final substantive provision is a disclaimer, which provides: ‘Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.’ By its terms, speaks only to those who may or may not have ‘claims against the United States.’”

“The State Supreme Court, however, read [this] as a congressional recognition – and preservation – of claims against Hawai‘i. There is no justification for turning an express disclaimer of claims against one sovereign into an affirmative recognition of claims against another.”

The US Supreme Court concluded, “First, ‘whereas’ clauses like those in the Apology Resolution cannot bear the weight that the lower court placed on them. As we recently explained in a different context, ‘where the text of a clause itself indicates that it does not have operative effect, such as ‘whereas’ clauses in federal legislation …, a court has no license to make it do what it was not designed to do.’”

“Second, even if the ‘whereas’ clauses had some legal effect, they did not ‘chang[e] the legal landscape and restructur[e] the rights and obligations of the State.’”

“The Apology Resolution reveals no indication – much less a ‘clear and manifest’ one – that Congress intended to amend or repeal the State’s rights and obligations under Admission Act (or any other federal law); nor does the Apology Resolution reveal any evidence that Congress intended sub silentio to ‘cloud’ the title that the United States held in ‘absolute fee’” and transferred to the State in 1959.”

“Third, the Apology Resolution would raise grave constitutional concerns if it purported to ‘cloud’ Hawaii’s title to its sovereign lands more than three decades after the State’s admission to the Union. We have emphasized that ‘Congress cannot, after statehood, reserve or convey submerged lands that have already been bestowed upon a State.’”

A later Hawaiʻi Supreme Court case noted (in 2014,) “The US Supreme Court reversed this court, holding that the Apology Resolution did not confer substantive rights or have a substantive legal effect. Thus, the Apology Bill cannot serve to support a fundamental right to nation-building”. (SCWC-29794)

It’s interesting to note the Supreme Court’s repeated references to the Republic of Hawai‘i, Annexation, Territory, Newlands Resolution, Admission Act, State, etc.

© 2026 Hoʻokuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Hawai‘i Seven

“The Alien Registration Act of 1940, better known as the ‘Smith Act,’ was initially designed to monitor immigrants and prosecute those suspected of collaborating with fascist enemy powers.”

“But after World War II, as relations with the US and Soviet Union changed from reluctant allies to avowed enemies, the Justice Department turned the Smith Act into a weapon against the left, manipulating the law to target American citizens alleged to be leaders of the Communist Party.”  (DeLauder, University of Washington)

“The Alien Registration Act was introduced by Virginia Congressman Howard Smith, passed by Congress, and signed by President Roosevelt on June 28, 1940, World War II was raging in Europe and Asia and Congress, worried about espionage, passed the law to keep track of immigrant noncitizens.”

“It required adult noncitizens to register with the federal government and be fingerprinted.  (DeLauder, University of Washington)

Then, in the Islands, seven were arrested at or near their homes in the morning of August 28, 1951 and were charged with “conspiring with each other”. “According to the complaint, the alleged conspiracy has continued since April 1, 1945.” (Star Bulletin, August 29, 1951)

The “Hawaii Seven” were Jack Wayne Hall, John Ernest Reinecke, Jack Denishi Kimoto, Koji Ariyoshi, Dwight James Freeman, Charles Kazuyuki Fujimoto and Eileen Toshiko Fujimoto. (State Bulletin)

“The arrests came when sugar negotiations were in progress and on the day of the arrest, the ILWU sugar negotiating committee came to the Federal building to hold a conference with Hall, who was held in custody there. The arrests came when 750 ILWU pine workers were on strike on Lanai.” (Honolulu Record)

“Six defendants spent a week in jail while $15,000 bail was being raised for each. For travel outside of Oahu, an additional $10,000 was required.” (Star Bulletin)

“The longest and hardest fought case in the Territory’s history lasted seven and a half months from late 1952 to the summer of 1953 in the whipped up atmosphere of cold-war McCarthyism.” (Honolulu Record)

“Hawaii’s seven top Communists, including Longshore Boss Jack W Hall, were convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the Government today [June 19, 1953] and stevedores immediately halted work on all island docks, possibly foreruning a general protest strike.”

“Within two hours after the verdict was announced Hall’s International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union suspended negotiations on a new contract and longshoremen began walking off the job at Castle and Cook Pier 32.”

“Conviction of the ‘Hawaii seven’ brings to 51 the number of United States Red leaders convicted since the Nation’s 11 top Communists were found guilty in New York in 1949.”  (The Tribune, Pennsylvania, June 20, 1953)

They appealed … “The US Court of Appeals, acting in line with the Supreme Court’s California Reds ruling of last June, Monday reversed the Smith Act convictions of seven persons in Hawaii and four in the State of Washington.” (Subcommittee on Territories and Insular Affairs)

(The “US  Supreme Court established a distinction between advocacy of a political doctrine and advocacy of action.” (Advertiser))

The Hawaii Seven were contacted after the Ninth Circuit reversal and provided the following comments to the Honolulu Record:

Jack W. Hall. “This period has certainly been a time when we as a union found out who our friends are. I found out as an individual, too Prom the beginning, I have had confidence that our union program and my part in it would be vindicated.”

Jack D. Kimoto. “The acquittal of the Hawaii Seven means a resounding defeat for reactionary elements who used the Smith Act as a vehicle in their conspiracy to smash militant trade unionism and progressive political movement in Hawaii The vehicle, itself, is on the way to the ash heap of History I congratulate everyone who did his share to defeat this abominable conspiracy.”

Charles K. Fujimoto. “I am happy that the courts have finally handed down a decision in our favor. It is a victory not only for the Seven, but for all Americans in the preservation of their civil liberties.”

Eileen Fujimoto. “I want to thank all the ILWU members, our attorneys and friends and all those who had the intellectual integrity and courage to support us in our fight for those basic civil rights guaranteed all Americans.”

Dr. John Reinecke. “My strongest impressions after more than six years of the Smith Act case and 10 years as one of the targets of local witch-hunting are of the kindliness of the average person, but also of a very general lack of civic courage.”

Koji Ariyoshi. “The reversal of the Smith Act conviction shows once again that laws are not always right, that government, or that part of government that enforces the laws, is not always right The Bill of Rights which protects all Americans finally passed after a long struggle by democratic minded Americans The Smith Act must be repealed.”

Dwight James Freeman. “I’m happy about the reversal of course, but it seems an awful shame that so much time and money and energy should have been required to fight charges that should never have been made and a case that should never have been in court.”

© 2026 Ho‘okuleana LLC

by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Bull Pen

Betty Jean O’Hara was “born in Chicago, Illinois in 1913, the year preceding the 1st World War. The early years of (her) life were happy and normal. Being the only child of a physician, (she) was given the best schooling in preparation for a career.”

“(Her) parents were Catholic, and were strict in the regimentation of (her) life. (She) was permitted however to attend parties and movies with other children (her) age.”

At about the age of 16, she met a girl and her boyfriend at a party. The girl was covered in fine jewelry and nice clothes. Young, and easily led, she “agreed to their sordid plans and went into the business of the ‘oldest profession.’” A month later, she left home and headed to San Francisco. (O’Hara)

“Jean O’Hara was a pretty girl who became a handsome woman. She was ‘black Irish,’ fair-skinned with a clear complexion which set off her dark eyes, raven hair, and even her features. She stood about 5’4” and at 120 pounds was slender by that era’s standards. Her good looks and classy bearing would serve her well.” (Bailey & Farber)

“(O’Hara) got used to the fast money.”

“(She) started working in one of the better class houses, and (she) became definitely committed to the practice of prostitution. (Her) father and mother tried every means available to frighten (her) into going home …”

“… but being headstrong, and enticed by the seemingly fabulous earnings (she) resisted their every attempt. Although (she) actually loathed the life, (her) sense of shame and sin aroused in (her) a perverse independence.” (O’Hara)

In mid-1938, O’Hara arrived in Honolulu from San Francisco.

There was an unofficial system of regulated prostitution in the Islands, with the also unofficial sanction of the military. Army military police and the Navy shore patrol helped monitor it.

All girls had to live in the houses where they worked; no white girls were allowed on the other side of River Street. The Army, Navy, and civilian police picketed any house violating the rules, and no man could enter it. According to the agreement, the civil police regulated prostitution “with full cooperation by the Army and Navy.” (Greer)

“The business of procuring girls to work in the brothels, or “factories”, before the war (WWII,) was usually handled by the same … “procurer.” He handled nothing but the transportation of the girls. … The fee for procuring a girl from the mainland rage(d) from $500 to $1,000 depending on the looks and the capability of the girl.” (O’Hara)

A detective would meet the ships coming in and the girls were taken to the ‘receiving station.’ (In O’Hara’s case, that was the Blaisdell Hotel on Fort Street.) The girls were explained the rules – in no uncertain terms, the girls were told that any violation of the rules meant banishment from the Territory.

All of the girls have a Territorial tax book and a Territorial license (they were licensed as ‘entertainers,’) which cost each $1 per year. In addition, every month the Vice Squad would collect an unofficial tax of $30 per girl from the brothels.

The girls paid Federal income taxes, as well as state taxes. “It has been said that (the) girls and Madames are the heaviest tax payers in Honolulu. … Each girl in Honolulu can average from $4,000 per month to $5,000 per month. … Taxes are collected by the Madame of the house, who also files the returns for them.” (O’Hara)

Before WWII, the girls usually started to work around 1 pm, and ended around 5 am. The ‘blackout’ during the war meant they worked from 8 am to noon.

“Very few girls made under a $100 a day, some of these double that and some of them made over $300 a day. It all depends upon the girl. She can make as much as she wants.”

“The price charged is $3.00 per date. Of this, the Madame gets one dollar. Out of the remaining two dollars, the girl must pay the Madame for her room and board and laundry.” (O’Hara)

The Madames were women from the mainland. Although prostitution was not legal, they needed permission from the local Police before operating.

When WWII broke out, and martial law was in effect, the military called the shots (1941-1943.) A “substantial number” of prostitutes were brought to Honolulu from the mainland under military priorities – a common rumor – and that under military government prostitution “flourished.” (Greer)

Most brothels required girls to see at least 100 men a day and to work at least 20 days per month.

To speed things along, O’Hara is credited with inventing the ‘bull pen’ system where a single prostitute would work three rooms in rotation (including maid service.)

In one room a man would be undressing, in a second room the prostitute would be having sex, and in the third room the man would be dressing. (The guy had three minutes to achieve release, after which she said ‘aloha’ and was off to the next room while he washed up and got dressed.) (McNeill)

After a few months’ work in a Hotel Street brothel, she had amassed a sizable bankroll. She leased a house near Waikiki Beach with a friend.

“The life of a prostitute is not an easy one, and the stringent rules of the Honolulu Police Department, headed by Chief of Police Gabrielson, left her no more freedom that a prisoner.”

O’Hara broke the rules (often) and ended up getting the regular attention of the Police, including Gabrielson. She was fined, imprisoned and beat black and blue, with two broken ribs.

O’Hara filed a $100,000 lawsuit in 1941 against the Police department for her two broken ribs and black eyes. The lawsuit was dropped, but conflicts with the Police continued.

O’Hara later married a ‘local boy’ and quit the business. She was a prostitute for 13-years, and temporarily was a Madame. She had homes in Waikiki and Pacific Heights.

After leaving the brothels, “(her) only desire (was) to live a useful family life, and help others to live and let live, as one resurrected from the sordid flesh mines of humanity.”

In 1944, she wrote a booklet, ‘My Life as a Honolulu Prostitute.’ She died in 1973. (Lots of information here is from that booklet.)

© 2026 Hoʻokuleana LLC