Template:Nhsc-v1-354 - Revision history

Jennifer Wada at 09:07, 7 May 2006

2006-05-07T09:07:26Z

Jennifer Wada at 08:56, 7 May 2006

2006-05-07T08:56:15Z

Reid Ginoza at 20:57, 10 March 2006

2006-03-10T20:57:30Z

New page

30/ Betts, pp. 15-20; MacKenzie, p
76. One commenter takes the position
the Great Mahele did not extinguish
aboriginal title. However, the Great
Mahele was the process established
when individuals could acquire fee
simple ownership to Government and
Crown land and thus obtain vested
property interests. Such an action by
the Hawaiian Government was
inconsistent with the existence of
aboriginal title to the Government and
Crown lands, and together with other
actions inconsistent with aboriginal
title, operated to extinguish
aboriginal title, if any had existed,
prior to 1893.
31/ Nooksack Tribe v. Uni ted
States, supra, 3 Ind.Cl.Comm. at 495.
32/ 3 Ind.Cl.Comm. at 494-495.
33/ Skokomish Tribe v. Uni ted
States, 6 Ind.Cl.Comm. 135,
157-158 (1958). Cf_. Red Lake, Pembina
and White Earth Bands, et. al. v.
United States, 164 Ct.Cl. 389, 393-394
(1964). The fact that land that is
the subject of a claim of aboriginal
title was explicitly included in a
treaty of cession involving said land
(and other land) does not establish
the existence of aboriginal title.
34/ See discussion in text above.
35/ Karen Blondin, A Case for
reparations for Native Hawaiians, 16
Hawaiian Bar Journal 13, p. 27; Levy,
pp. 857-859. In her article, A Case
for Reparations, Karen Blondin argues
that the Court of Claims decision in
Liliuokalani v. United States, 45 Ct.
CI. 418 (1910) makes clear that land
was collectively held and used by
native Hawaiians. In Liliuokalani,
the Court of Claims held that the
lands held as Crown lands by the Queen
should be treated as other Government
lands, so that the Queen's loss of the
lands did not give rise to a
compensable taking for her. Since the
Government lands, as discussed above,
are not regarded as owned collectively
by the native Hawaiians as a group,
the ruling in Liliuokalani does not
support Blondin's argument.
Further, in Sovereignty and Land,
MacKenzie argues that the 1840
Constitution created a trust
relationship among the king, chiefs,
and people by citing a statute that
reads:
No man living on a farm whose
name is recorded by his landlord,
shall without cause desert the
land of his landlord. Nor shall
the landlord causelessly
dispossess his tenant, (p. 6)
However, this statute was a mere
instrument of the chiefs to ke p the
laborers of their land from leaving
their homes for the developing cities
of Honolulu and Lahaina (Levy, p. 851).
It was not a statement of common use
and ownership. These laws and the
ones to follow were to represent a
move toward the philosophy of
individual ownership of land and a
break from whatever common use may
have existed in the traditional feudal
land system.
36/ See footnote 16, above.
37/ Nooksack Tribe v. United
States, supra, 3 Ind.Cl.Comm, at
494-495; Samish Tribe v. United
States_, 6 Ind.Cl.Comm. 159, 172
(1958).
38/ OHA's Comments, p. 23.
39/ Act of August 6, 1850 §7
[1850] Hawaii Laws 203 (2 Revised Laws
(1925) at 2142); Hanifin, p. 18; and
Levy, p. 857.
40/ Levy, p. 857, note 57, citing
Oni v. Meek, 2 Haw. 87 (1858).
41/ OHA's Comments, p. 23.
354

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 reparations for Native Hawaiians</u>, 16
 Hawaiian Bar Journal 13, p. 27; Levy,
-pp. 857-859. In her article, <uA Case
+pp. 857-859. In her article, <u>A Case
 for Reparations</u>, Karen Blondin argues
 that the Court of Claims decision in

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-/ Betts, pp. 15-20; MacKenzie, p
+<u>30</u>/ Betts, pp. 15-20; MacKenzie, p
 . One commenter takes the position
 the Great Mahele did not extinguish
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 aboriginal title, if any had existed,
 prior to 1893.
-/ Nooksack Tribe v. Uni ted
-States, supra, 3 Ind.Cl.Comm. at 495.
+<u>31</u>/ <u>Nooksack Tribe</u> v. <u>United
-/ 3 Ind.Cl.Comm. at 494-495.
+States</u>, <u>supra</u>, 3 Ind.Cl.Comm. at 495.
-/ Skokomish Tribe v. Uni ted
-States, 6 Ind.Cl.Comm. 135,
+<u>32</u>/ 3 Ind.Cl.Comm. at 494-495.
--158 (1958). Cf_. Red Lake, Pembina
-and White Earth Bands, et. al. v.
+<u>33</u>/ <u>Skokomish Tribe</u> v. <u>United
-United States, 164 Ct.Cl. 389, 393-394
+States</u>, 6 Ind.Cl.Comm. 135,
 (1964). The fact that land that is
 the subject of a claim of aboriginal
@@ Line 30: / Line 33: @@
 (and other land) does not establish
 the existence of aboriginal title.
 / See discussion in text above.
-/ Karen Blondin, A Case for
+<u>34</u>/ See discussion in text above.
 reparations for Native Hawaiians, 16
 Hawaiian Bar Journal 13, p. 27; Levy,
-pp. 857-859. In her article, A Case
+pp. 857-859. In her article, <uA Case
-for Reparations, Karen Blondin argues
+for Reparations</u>, Karen Blondin argues
 that the Court of Claims decision in
-Liliuokalani v. United States, 45 Ct.
+<u>Liliuokalani</u> v. <u>United States</u>, 45 Ct.
 CI. 418 (1910) makes clear that land
 was collectively held and used by
@@ Line 50: / Line 55: @@
 are not regarded as owned collectively
 by the native Hawaiians as a group,
-the ruling in Liliuokalani does not
+the ruling in <u>Liliuokalani</u> does not
 support Blondin's argument.
 Further, in Sovereignty and Land,
 MacKenzie argues that the 1840
 Constitution created a trust
@@ Line 58: / Line 64: @@
 and people by citing a statute that
 reads:
 No man living on a farm whose
-name is recorded by his landlord,
+:No man living on a farm whose name is recorded by his landlord, shall without cause desert the land of his landlord. Nor shall the landlord causelessly dispossess his tenant. (p. 6)
 shall without cause desert the
 However, this statute was a mere
 instrument of the chiefs to ke p the
@@ Line 77: / Line 80: @@
 have existed in the traditional feudal
 land system.
 / See footnote 16, above.
-/ Nooksack Tribe v. United
+<u>36</u>/ See footnote 16, above.
 States, supra, 3 Ind.Cl.Comm, at
--495; Samish Tribe v. United
+<u>37</u>/ <u>Nooksack Tribe</u> v. <u>United
-States_, 6 Ind.Cl.Comm. 159, 172
+States</u>, <u>supra</u>, 3 Ind.Cl.Comm, at
 (1958).
 / OHA's Comments, p. 23.
-/ Act of August 6, 1850 §7
+<u>38</u>/ OHA's Comments, p. 23.
 [1850] Hawaii Laws 203 (2 Revised Laws
 (1925) at 2142); Hanifin, p. 18; and
 Levy, p. 857.
 / Levy, p. 857, note 57, citing
-Oni v. Meek, 2 Haw. 87 (1858).
+<u>40</u>/ Levy, p. 857, note 57, citing
-/ OHA's Comments, p. 23.
+<u>Oni</u> v. <u>Meek</u>, 2 Haw. 87 (1858).
-−