Difference between revisions of "Template:Nhsc-v1-257"

From GrassrootWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
landmarks disappeared when they became
 
landmarks disappeared when they became
part of plantations. Kuleana were
+
part of plantations. <u>Kuleana</u> were
 
also lost to larger surrounding
 
also lost to larger surrounding
 
land-holders by invocation of the
 
land-holders by invocation of the
doctrine of adverse possession. 45/
+
doctrine of adverse possession. <u>45</u>/
Seme kuleana lands were simply sold.
+
Some <u>kuleana</u> lands were simply sold.
 +
 
 
The king's lands were freely sold
 
The king's lands were freely sold
by Xmgs. Because of particular
+
by kings. Because of particular
 
problems with these lands, including
 
problems with these lands, including
 
the debts of the monarchs, the Act of
 
the debts of the monarchs, the Act of
Line 13: Line 14:
 
inalienable, to descend to the heirs
 
inalienable, to descend to the heirs
 
and successors of the Hawaiian crown
 
and successors of the Hawaiian crown
forever. 46/
+
forever. <u>46</u>/
 +
 
 
The 1890 census revealed the extent
 
The 1890 census revealed the extent
 
to which these forces had put land in
 
to which these forces had put land in
Line 24: Line 26:
 
were native Hawaiian, three out of
 
were native Hawaiian, three out of
 
four acres belonging to private
 
four acres belonging to private
owners were held by westerners. 47/
+
owners were held by westerners. <u>47</u>/
B. SPECIFIC PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
+
 
QUESTIONS
+
===B. SPECIFIC PROPERTY OWNERSHIP QUESTIONS===
 +
 
 
A number of specific questions about
 
A number of specific questions about
 
property ownership and use that may
 
property ownership and use that may
arfect native Hawaiian interests arose
+
affect native Hawaiian interests arose
 
at the hearings of the Native Hawaiians
 
at the hearings of the Native Hawaiians
 
Study Commission in January, 1982. To
 
Study Commission in January, 1982. To
Line 35: Line 38:
 
section will identify and discuss those
 
section will identify and discuss those
 
issues.
 
issues.
Statiia_ of Water and Fishpond Rights
+
 
under Hawaiian Law
+
====Status of Water and Fishpond Rights under Hawaiian Law====
 
For the most part, waters in Hawaii
 
For the most part, waters in Hawaii
 
are treated no differently than waters
 
are treated no differently than waters
 
elsewhere in the United States—that
 
elsewhere in the United States—that
 
is, navigable waters cannot be
 
is, navigable waters cannot be
privately owned. In McBryde Sugar Co.,
+
privately owned. In <u>McBryde Sugar Co., Ltd.</u> v. <u>Robinson</u>, 54 Haw. 174, 187
Ltd. v. Robinson, 54 Haw. 174, 187
 
 
(1973), the Supreme Court of Hawaii
 
(1973), the Supreme Court of Hawaii
 
held that "the ownership of water in
 
held that "the ownership of water in
Line 51: Line 53:
 
of cases suggesting that all waters
 
of cases suggesting that all waters
 
were owned by the holder of the
 
were owned by the holder of the
ahupua'a. The Supreme Court's
+
<u>ahupua'a</u>. The Supreme Court's
 
conclusion followed naturally from the
 
conclusion followed naturally from the
 
fact that at least as early as 1842,
 
fact that at least as early as 1842,
Line 62: Line 64:
 
right of the sovereign over commerce
 
right of the sovereign over commerce
 
and navigation was recognized.
 
and navigation was recognized.
 +
 
Hawaiian law did, however, accord
 
Hawaiian law did, however, accord
 
special protection to the right to
 
special protection to the right to
Line 73: Line 76:
 
treated as fast land. The early
 
treated as fast land. The early
 
regime has been described as follows:
 
regime has been described as follows:
Kuapa Pond, with other Hawaiian
+
 
fishponds, have always been
+
: Kuapa Pond, with other Hawaiian fishponds, have always been considered to be private property by landowners and by the Hawaiian government. Most fishponds were built behind barrier beaches, such as Kuapa Pond, or immediately seaward of the land controlled by the <u>ali'i</u>, or chiefs. By imposing tabu on the taking of fish from a pond, the chief alone determined the allotment, if any, of fish, just as he distributed the other crops among his sub-chiefs, land agents, and vassals. The fishpond was thus an integral part of the Hawaiian feudal system. Chiefs
considered to be private property
+
 
by landowners and by the Hawaiian
+
{{p|257}}
government. Most fishponds were
 
built behind barrier beaches, such
 
as Kuapa Pond, or immediately
 
seaward of the land controlled by
 
the ali'i, or chiefs. By imposing
 
tabu on the taking of fish from a
 
pond, the chief alone determined
 
the allotment, if any, of fish,,
 
just as he distributed the other
 
crops among his sub-chiefs, land
 
agents, and vassals. The fishpond
 
was thus an integral part of the
 
Hawaiian feudal system. Chiefs
 
257
 

Latest revision as of 19:39, 17 April 2006

landmarks disappeared when they became part of plantations. Kuleana were also lost to larger surrounding land-holders by invocation of the doctrine of adverse possession. 45/ Some kuleana lands were simply sold.

The king's lands were freely sold by kings. Because of particular problems with these lands, including the debts of the monarchs, the Act of January 3, 1865, designated the king's lands as Crown lands and declared them inalienable, to descend to the heirs and successors of the Hawaiian crown forever. 46/

The 1890 census revealed the extent to which these forces had put land in the hands of westerners. Of a population of near 90,000, fewer than 5,000 owned land. The relatively small number of Americans and Europeans owned over one million acres. Although three out of four landowners were native Hawaiian, three out of four acres belonging to private owners were held by westerners. 47/

B. SPECIFIC PROPERTY OWNERSHIP QUESTIONS

A number of specific questions about property ownership and use that may affect native Hawaiian interests arose at the hearings of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission in January, 1982. To assure a comprehensive study, this section will identify and discuss those issues.

Status of Water and Fishpond Rights under Hawaiian Law

For the most part, waters in Hawaii are treated no differently than waters elsewhere in the United States—that is, navigable waters cannot be privately owned. In McBryde Sugar Co., Ltd. v. Robinson, 54 Haw. 174, 187 (1973), the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that "the ownership of water in natural watercourses, streams, and rivers remained in the people of Hawaii for their common good." In so ruling, the court rejected a long line of cases suggesting that all waters were owned by the holder of the ahupua'a. The Supreme Court's conclusion followed naturally from the fact that at least as early as 1842, interference with navigation was precluded by statute (Laws of 1842, Ch. XXVII, Statute Regulations Respecting Ships, Vessels, and Harbors (Fundamental Law, pp. 80-89)), and hence, by implication, a superior right of the sovereign over commerce and navigation was recognized.

Hawaiian law did, however, accord special protection to the right to raise and capture fish. Two categories of waters, sea fisheries and fishponds, have historically been treated as part of the land. The situation with respect to sea fisheries has changed from feudal times, but fishponds continue to be treated as fast land. The early regime has been described as follows:

Kuapa Pond, with other Hawaiian fishponds, have always been considered to be private property by landowners and by the Hawaiian government. Most fishponds were built behind barrier beaches, such as Kuapa Pond, or immediately seaward of the land controlled by the ali'i, or chiefs. By imposing tabu on the taking of fish from a pond, the chief alone determined the allotment, if any, of fish, just as he distributed the other crops among his sub-chiefs, land agents, and vassals. The fishpond was thus an integral part of the Hawaiian feudal system. Chiefs
-p257-