Template:Nhsc-v1-351 - Revision history

Jennifer Wada at 08:09, 7 May 2006

2006-05-07T08:09:16Z

Jennifer Wada at 08:00, 7 May 2006

2006-05-07T08:00:31Z

Reid Ginoza at 20:56, 10 March 2006

2006-03-10T20:56:14Z

New page

In contrast, in Hawaii the land
rights of the natives were determined
by a series of laws from 1850 to 1898,
subsequent to the Great Mahele of
1848, which established a mechanism
for the acquisition of fee title. The
Crown and Government lands established
by the Great Mahele eventually became
federal lands when Hawaii was annexed
by the United States. Title to the
lands was vested in the State of
Hawaii by the Hawaiian Statehood Act,
which does not contain a provision
protecting native land rights similar
to the one found in the Alaska
Statehood Act.
Therefore, the reasons that
impelled passage of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act are not present
in the Hawaiian situation.
***
The purpose of this chapter has
been to examine the existing laws that
are most likely to provide a basis for
compensation to native Hawaiians for
any loss of lands or loss of
sovereignty. As set forth in detail
here, the review shows that existing
law provides no basis for such
compensation. Therefore, special
legislation would be required before
any such payments could be made.
Congress has responded in the past to
native American claims: once with the
passage of the Indian Claims
Commission Act in 1946, and again in
1971 with the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act.
351

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 with the Alaska Native Claims
 Settlement Act.
+{{p|351}}

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Claims Settlement Act are not present
 in the Hawaiian situation.
 ***
 The purpose of this chapter has
 been to examine the existing laws that