Reid Ginoza at 02:24, 7 May 2006

2006-05-07T02:24:11Z

Reid Ginoza at 20:55, 10 March 2006

2006-03-10T20:55:03Z

New page

supervise the ceded lands, -no
fiduciary or trust relationship
between the native Hawaiians and the.
Federal Government exists. 184/
The fact that the title to the
ceded lands was held by the United
States did not give rise to a
fiduciary relationship because
Congress provided that the Territory
of Hawaii would control and supervise
these lands—not the Federal
Government. 185/ Furthermore,
pursuant to Section 5 of the Hawaii
Admission Act (Act of March 18, 1959,
73 Stat. 4,5), the United States
granted the State of Hawaii "the
United States' title to all the public
lands, and other public property
within the boundaries of the State of
Hawaii, title to which is held by the
United States immediately prior to its
admission to the Union." Since fee
title to much of the ceded lands is no
longer held by the Federal Government,
no fiduciary relationship now exists
as to the ceded lands, in any event.
Some commenters on the Commission's
Draft Report assert that the Hawaiian
Homes Commission Act of 1921 186/ and
Hawaii's Admission Act 187/
"unequivocally establish a trust
relationship between Native Hawaiians
and the Federal Government." 188/ Yet
even assuming this assertion is
correct, 189/ such specific trusts do
not establish the existence of a
general trust that might require
compensation for the Government and
Crown lands. Only a trust duty with
respect to these lands that arose
prior to 1893 or 1898 might require
payment of compensation. A trust duty
must come into existence before it can
be breached. 190/ Here, the acts that
supposedly constituted the breach
(that is, the Federal Government's
participation in the fall of the
Hawaiian monarchy and annexation) are
said to have simultaneously given rise
to the alleged trust duty. Yet the
acts of breach cannot create a trust
relationship. 191/
Even if a trust relationship
between the Hawaiian natives and the
Federal Government were to exist with
respect to the Crown and Government
lands (by virtue of the Joint
Resolution of Annexation and the
Organic Act), it is, at most, a very
limited trust relationship. The
requirement that revenues or proceeds
from the ceded lands were (with
certain exceptions) to be used "solely
for the benefit of the inhabitants of
the Hawaiian Islands for educational
and other public purposes" was at most
a "special trust" that "merely
restricted the uses to which the
proceeds of such lands [the public
lands of Hawaii] could be put." 192/
Additionally, even though the proceeds
or revenues from the ceded lands may
have been the subject of a "special
trust," and even though the Federal
Government held fee title to the ceded
lands, these two circumstances did not
"impose upon the Government all
fiduciary duties ordinarily placed by
equity upon a trustee." 193/ This
limited trust relationship, if any,
did not encompass any fiduciary duty
of the Federal Government bo protect
the native Hawaiians in the possession
of their lands because the Federal
Government never assumed any such
duty. 194/
There is most likely no specified
trust relationship between the United
States and the native Hawaiians
established by law of the United
States, requiring compensation to be
paid for the Crown and Government
lands or for loss of sovereignty. At
most there is a very limited special
trust. Native Hawaiians are therefore
not entitled under existing law to
compensation for any breach of a trust
duty toward them.
F. COMPARISON WITH ALASKA NATIVE
CLAIMS
The legal claims of the Alaska
Natives that motivated passage of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
349
(

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-supervise the ceded lands, -no
+supervise the ceded lands, no
 fiduciary or trust relationship
-between the native Hawaiians and the.
+between the native Hawaiians and the Federal Government exists. <u>184</u>/
 Federal Government exists. 184/
 The fact that the title to the
 ceded lands was held by the United
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 of Hawaii would control and supervise
 these lands—not the Federal
-Government. 185/ Furthermore,
+Government. <u>185</u>/ Furthermore,
 pursuant to Section 5 of the Hawaii
 Admission Act (Act of March 18, 1959,
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 no fiduciary relationship now exists
 as to the ceded lands, in any event.
 Some commenters on the Commission's
 Draft Report assert that the Hawaiian
-Homes Commission Act of 1921 186/ and
+Homes Commission Act of 1921 <u>186</u>/ and
-Hawaii's Admission Act 187/
+Hawaii's Admission Act <u>187</u>
 "unequivocally establish a trust
 relationship between Native Hawaiians
-and the Federal Government." 188/ Yet
+and the Federal Government." <u>188</u>/ Yet
 even assuming this assertion is
-correct, 189/ such specific trusts do
+correct, <u>189</u>/ such specific trusts do
 not establish the existence of a
 general trust that might require
@@ Line 42: / Line 43: @@
 payment of compensation. A trust duty
 must come into existence before it can
-be breached. 190/ Here, the acts that
+be breached. <u>190</u>/ Here, the acts that
 supposedly constituted the breach
 (that is, the Federal Government's
@@ Line 50: / Line 51: @@
 to the alleged trust duty. Yet the
 acts of breach cannot create a trust
-relationship. 191/
+relationship. <u>191</u>/
 Even if a trust relationship
 between the Hawaiian natives and the
@@ Line 68: / Line 70: @@
 restricted the uses to which the
 proceeds of such lands [the public
-lands of Hawaii] could be put." 192/
+lands of Hawaii] could be put." <u>192</u>/
 Additionally, even though the proceeds
 or revenues from the ceded lands may
@@ Line 77: / Line 79: @@
 "impose upon the Government all
 fiduciary duties ordinarily placed by
-equity upon a trustee." 193/ This
+equity upon a trustee." <u>193</u>/ This
 limited trust relationship, if any,
 did not encompass any fiduciary duty
@@ Line 84: / Line 86: @@
 of their lands because the Federal
 Government never assumed any such
-duty. 194/
+duty. <u>194</u>/
 There is most likely no specified
 trust relationship between the United
@@ Line 97: / Line 100: @@
 compensation for any breach of a trust
 duty toward them.
 F. COMPARISON WITH ALASKA NATIVE
-CLAIMS
+===F. COMPARISON WITH ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS===
 The legal claims of the Alaska
 Natives that motivated passage of the
 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
+{{p|349}}

Template:Nhsc-v1-349 - Revision history

Reid Ginoza at 02:24, 7 May 2006

Reid Ginoza at 20:55, 10 March 2006