NHSC Appendix

From GrassrootWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Public Law 96-565, Title III
  • Substitute Findings/Conclusions/Recommendations Section Submitted at March 3, 1983 Native Hawaiians Study Commission Meeting
  • Summary of Written Comments Received by the Commission
  • Written Comments Received by the Commission

* Public Law 96-565-Dec. 22, 1980

SEC. 301. This title may be cited as the "Native Hawaiians Study Commission Act".


SEC. 302. There is hereby established the Native Hawaiians Study Commission (hereinafter in this title referred to as the "Commission").

(b) The Commission shall be composed of nine members appointed by the President. Not more than three of such members shall be residents of the State of Hawaii.

(c) The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Commission shall be designated by the President at the time of appointment.

(d) Vacancies in the membership of the Commission shall not affect the powers of the remaining members to execute the functions of the Commission and shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointments were made.

(e) The President shall call the first meeting of the Commission not more than ninety days after the date of the enactment of this title.

(f) Five members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a smaller number specified by the Commission may conduct hearings.

(g) Each member of the Commission shall receive $100 for each day such member is engaged in performing the duties of the Commission, except that members of the Commission who are full time officers or employees of the United States shall receive no additional pay on account of their service on the Commission other than official travel expenses.

(h) While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission, members of the Commission (including members who are fulltine officers or employees of the United States) shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem, in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703 of title 5, United States Code.

(i) Subject to such rules and regulations as may be adopted by the Commission, the Chairman may--

(1) appoint and fix the compensation of an executive director, a general counsel, and such additional staff as he deems necessary, without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, but at rates not in excess of the maximum rate of pay in effect from time to time for grade GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 53 32 of such title; and
(2) procure temporary and intermittent services to the same extent as is authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates not to exceed $100 a day for individuals.

(j) Subject to section 552a of title 5, United States Code, the Commission may secure directly from any department or agency of the United States information necessary to enable it to carry out this title. Upon request of the Chairman of the Commission* the head of such department or agency shall furnish such information to the Commission.


(k) The Commission may use the United States mails in the same manner and upon the same conditions as other departments and agencies of the United States.


Sec. 303. (a) The Commission shall conduct a study of the culture, needs and concerns of the Native Hawaiians.

(b) The Commission shall conduct such hearings as it considers appropriate and shall provide notice of such hearings to the public, including information concerning the date, location and topic of each hearing. The Commission shall take other actions as it considers necessary to obtain full public participation in the study undertaken by the Commission.

(c) Within one year after the date of its first meeting, the Commission shall publish a draft report of the findings of the study and shall distribute copies of the draft report to appropriate Federal and State agencies, to Native Hawaiian organizations, and upon request, to members of the public. The Commission shall solicit written comments from the organizations and individuals to whom copies of the draft report are distributed.

(d) After taking into consideration any comments submitted to the Commission, the Commission shall issue a final report of the results of its study within nine months after the publication of its draft report. The Commission shall submit copies of the final report and copies of all written comments on the draft submitted to the Commission under paragraph (c) to the President and to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives.

(e) The Commission shall make recommendations to the Congress based on its findings and conclusions under subsection (a) of this section.


Sec. 304. Except as provided in subsection (b) of section 307, upon the expiration of the sixty-day period following the submission of the report required by section 303, the Commission shall cease to exist.


Sec. 305. For the purposes of this title, the term "Native Hawaiian" means any individual whose ancestors were natives of the area which consisted of the Hawaiian Islands prior 1778.


Sec. 306. No provision of this title shall be construed as—

(1) constituting a jurisdictional act, conferring jurisdiction to sue, or granting implied consent to Native Hawaiians to sue the United States or any of its offices; or
(2) constituting a precedent for reopening, renegotiating, or legislating any past settlement involving land claims or other matters with any Native organization or any tribe, band, or identifiable group of American Indians.


Sec. 307. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 1982 and 1983 such sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this title. Until October 1, 1981, salaries and expenses of the Commission shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the Chairman. To the extent that any payments are made


from the contingent fund of the Senate prior to the time appropriation is made, such payments shall be chargeable against the authorization provided herein.

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall reserve a reasonable portion of the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) of this section for the purpose of providinq payment for the transportation, subsistence, and reasonable expenses of the members of the Commission in testifying before the Congress with respect to their duties and activities while serving on the Commission or to such matters as may involve the findings of the study of the Commission after the expiration of the Commission pursuant to section 304.

Approved December 22, 1980.


Summary Of Findings, Conclusions And Recommendations *

As traced in the legislative history of measures preceding the establishment of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission (NHSC), the Congress wished to be advised about:

1) whether a wrong had been committed by the United States against the Native Hawaiian people; and
2) what appropriate actions could be recommended to remedy such a wrong.

It is the major finding of this Commission, after an examination of available governmental and historical records, that such a wrong did occur. The overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, the loss of Native Hawaiian domain and dominion, and accompanying social and cultural disruption among Native Hawaiians are consequences of that wrong.

Nature of the Wrong. After a review of the documents and on-hand descriptions of the actions and events which culminated in the overthrow of the Kinqdom of Hawai'i, we find that:

  • the United States, and its officers in the State and Navy Departments, did incite and encourage treason against the legitimate government of the Kingdom of Hawai'i;
  • American diplomatic and military authorization of support to a numerically-small band of insurgents emboldened and, ultimately, directed their actions against the legal government of Hawai'i in 1893;
  • this domestic insurgence against the Queen and her government lacked popular support, did not have sufficient arms to succeed unaided, and would have failed without the acts of the United States;
  • the diplomatic and military intervention of the United States in support of the insurgents contituted a breech of international law, of existing treaties of friendship and trade with the Kingdom, and was an illegal and immoral act of war against an independent nation and her people; and
  • these actions by the United States compelled the Queen of Hawai'i to suspend her authority and that of her government to the United States, pending appropriate review.


Based on these findings, we recommend that:

  • the Congress of the United States, by Joint Resolution, clearly acknowledge the role and actions of the United States in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, and indicate its commitment to grant restitution for the losses and

  • / This is the substitute

presented at the March 3, 1983 meeting of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission by three Native Hawaiians Study Commissioners (see above, "Approach and Methodology"). It is reproduced here unchanged.

damages suffered by Native Hawaiians as a result of those actions.

Nature of the Losses and Damages. The Kingdom of Hawai'i and her people had a separate and distinct cultural, legal, and Constitutional history. Although strongly influenced by Euro-American models and individuals, Native Hawaiians had devised modern institutions of government, property and social organization which reflected both an ancient past and a contemporary standing among nations.

What, then, were the nature of the losses and damages experienced by Native Hawaiians with the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i?

The lands and sovereignty of the Kingdom, and the interests of Native Hawaiians represented in them, are considered first.

After an examination of traditional land tenure systems, Constitutional provisions, and related Kingdom laws, we find that:

  • Native Hawaiians held common and undivided anchestral land rights and interests vested in the domain and dominion of the Kingdom;
  • these anchestral land rights and interests were not diminished nor extinguished by any royal or government actions initiated by the Kingdom of Hawai'i, but were protected and guaranteed by legal titles held by the Kingdom for all public, government, and crown lands;
  • without the consent of or compensation to Native Hawaiians, these land rights and interests were assumed and subsequently ceded to the United States by a government whose existence was dependent on illegal actions by the United States;
  • these land rights and interests were accepted by the United States without the consent of or compensation to Native Hawaiians, and without any disclaimer provision to protect these land rights.

Based on these findings, we advise the Congress that Native Hawaiians have compensable claims for the loss of anchestral land rights and interests vested in the domain and dominion of the Kingdom of Hawai'i.

These compensable claims echo, but do not duplicate, similar claims by American Indians and Alaskan Natives. The strongest parallel among the claims is a call for American justice once a wrong has been acknowledged.

Native Hawaiians are Americans now, proud of the ideals and qualities of justice through law. The pride in being Native Hawaiians is also strong. The overwhelming majority of native Hawaiians do not want history to be re-written or to separate themselves from the United States. As proud Americans and Native Hawaiians, though, there is a desire and a basis for a remedy to past losses and damages.


Therefore, we recommend to the Congress that:

  • the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the U.S. House Committee on Insular and Interior Affairs consider and determine a just and equitable resolution of compensable claims by Native Hawaiians for losses of domain and dominion;
  • these Committees consult and involve Native Hawaiians to the greatest extent possible in the resolution of these claims, and that any proposed restitution be subject to formal acceptance by Native Hawaiians; and
  • pending resolution of these claims that the Congress take the appropriate action to assure that all lands controlled by the federal government in the State of Hawai'i maintain their current use and status, and that the archipelagic waters of Hawai'i enjoy the same security.

Congressional consideration of restitution to Native Hawaiians for illegal American actions leading to the overthrow of the Kingdom will, in all likelihood, include an examination of existing trust relationships between the United States and Native Hawaiians. These trust relationships are distinct, albeit not separate, from the claims for compensable losses and damages.

In order to help clarify the nature of the claims, however, a review of the trust relationships is a part of the groundwork necessary for determining restitution.

The Ceded Lands Trust. The public, crown, and government lands of the Kingdom totalled approximately 1.9 million acres -- nearly half the domain of the Islands. Under the control of the Republic of Hawai'i, 200,000 acres of these once-inalienable lands were transferred to private ownership.

At the time of American annexation of Hawai'i, then, the anchestral lands of Native Hawaiians encompassed 1.7 million acres of Hawai'i, much of it planted in sugar and pineapple by the terms of royal leases. These leases were undisturbed by the Republic and remained in force under the United States.

In the Joint Resolution of Annexation adopted by the Congress and passed by the Legislature of the Republic, the sovereignty and all "public, crown, or government lands" were ceded to the United States. This cession -- appropriate under international law -- was conducted without the consent of the people of Hawai'i and without compensation to Native Hawaiians.

The terms of this transfer, their later discussion in numerous Congressional hearings on statehood for the Territory of Hawai'i, and the eventual ratification of the Admission Act, substantiate these findings:

  • the public, crown and government lands ceded to the United States were transferred as a trust to be maintained and managed for the benefit of all the "inhabitants" of Hawai'i;
  • this trust imposed fiduciary responsibilities on the United States and constrained the use, management and proceeds generated from the trust to public purposes;
  • the bulk of these lands were returned in fee to the State of Hawai'i in the Admission Act, with explicit trust impositions and the naming of two possible beneficiary classes: Native Hawaiians, as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Act, and the general public;
  • the broad public purposes enunciated as consistent with the trust could be fulfilled at the discretion of the State; however, any purpose outside those named would result in a breach of trust.

From these findings, it is quite clear that the ceded lands trust was never intended nor construed to be restitution to Native Hawaiians.

The provision for Native Hawaiians, however, persuasively argues that Congress has extended a preliminary recognition of Native Hawaiian interests in those lands.

The State of Hawai'i, further, in the State Constitution of 1978, acknowledged the beneficiary interests of Native Hawaiians and provided a pro rata share of the ceded lands revenues be set aside for the "betterment of Native Hawaiians." These funds are administered and managed by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs whose Board of Trustees are elected by all Hawaiians.

(It should be noted here, and will be discussed in detail later, that the Native Hawaiians definition of the Hawaiian Homes Act is different from that guiding this Commission.)

This trust as a federal responsibility was not extinguished by the Admission Act or its terms. All ceded lands set aside for national park purposes were declared fee and the property of the Department of the Interior. However, it was the intent of Congress that all other lands controlled by the federal government were subject to return and incorporation into the trust of the State of Hawai'i.

This reversionary interest of the State in all non-park federal lands is now also of explicit trust interest to Native Hawaiians by the establishment of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

In the twenty-four years since Statehood, however, less than 600 acres of federally-controlled ceded lands have been returned.


Based on these findings, and the now-explicit reversionary interests of the Native Hawaiians and the State of Hawai'i, the following recommendation is offered to the Congress:

  • that the Congress establish a Joint Federal-State Ceded Lands Commission for the State of Hawai'i, to review the present use and need for federally-controlled lands in Hawai'i;
  • that this Commission advise the Congress on the status of these lands, and have the authority to declare such lands surplus and available for return to the State of Hawai'i; and
  • that Native Hawaiians be included and consulted in the course of the Commission's review.

The Hawaiian Homes Trust. A similar Federal-State Task Force is now completing a review of the Hawaiian Homes trust. This effort was prompted by an initial report of the Civil Rights Commission indicating that a breech of trust may have occurred in the administration and management of these lands.

As constituted, this Task Force? will submit its findings and recommendations to the Governor of the State of Hawai'i and the Secretary of the Interior.

Specific Congressional concerns and possible actions, however, will not be considered by this Task Force. Thus, it is our intention, based on the mandate of this Commission and the intense interest expressed by Native Hawaiians, to address possible areas of Congressional review.

Social Concerns. The consequences of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i by the United States are not confined to historical wrong or compensable claims for lost anchestral land rights and interests.


Dispossession and defeat also have psychological, social and cultural consequences for Native Hawaiians. By all major social indices — health, education, employment, income — Native Hawaiians display distinct disparities with their fellow citizens.

Health Concerns. The impact of Western diseases on Native Hawaiians was historically devastating. Waves of epidemics reduced the estimated contact population of 300,000 in 1778, to 34,000 by 1893. The implications of this decimation have been considered in a variety of contexts.

Western observers, beginning in 1838, noted that unless some dramatic improvement were made in the health conditions of Native Hawaiians that the race would disappear. These initial feelings of horror and dismay over the fatal impact of Western contact gradually altered.

After the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, Europeans and Americans began to adopt the attitudes and policies of Social Darwinism. The theory of "the survival of the fittest" was applied to nations, and validated Western expansion and imperialism as the natural working out of an inevitable progression of conquest and colonization.

Acquired immunity and intermarriage among Native Hawaiians, however, was reversing this trend. Demographic trends now indicate that the population had reached its lowest level in the final decade of the 19th Century, would stabilize for about twenty years, and then begin a dramatic recovery.

Today's Native Hawaiian population numbers an estimated 175,000 individuals, more than half of whom are less than 19 years old.

The health characteristics of this group, however, are adversely and consistently affected by mental health disorders, stress-related diseases, and an absence of culturally-sensitive health professionals.

As developed in depth within the body of this study, the following findings are offered:

  • the psychological despair and sense of being a conquered people in their own homeland is a factor in the health conditions of Native Hawaiians;
  • Native Hawaiians have the lowest life expectancy of any ethnic group in the State of Hawai'i: 67 years compared to a Statewide average of 74 years;
  • the leading causes of death for Native Hawaiians, in order of prevalence, are heart diseases, cancers, stroke, and accidents;
  • Native Hawaiians have the highest infant death rate in the State of Hawai'i: 14 per 1,000 live births compared to a statewide average of 10 per thousand;
  • mental health assessments indicate that Native Hawaiians have a higher-than-expected incidence of personality disorders, mental retardation, and drug abuse than their proportion of the population; and
  • suicide rates among Native Hawaiian males (statistics are unavailable for females) is the highest in the State of Hawai'i: 22.5 per 100,000 in the population, compared to a rate of 13.5 for males of all races in Hawai'i — rates in the 20-34 year age group of Native Hawaiians was even higher.

Native Hawaiians continue to experience a form of fatal impact usually associated with the last century. Neither Hawaiian nor Western medicine has effectively halted the damage.

Educational Concerns. In the perceived needs assessments conducted by Alu Like, Inc., and additional polling done by the University of Hawai'i, education has consistently received top priority among Native Hawaiians as an identified need.

These surveys and accompanying in-depth interviews contradict the impression often conveyed among professional educators that Native Hawaiian performance in schools is a consequence of not caring about or actively endorsing education by Hawaiian families.

A number of independent studies, particularly the extensive research published by John Gallimore, substantiate that:

  • Native Hawaiian children are raised with culturally-distinctive values, behaviors, and styles; and
  • that these differences, unless recognized and accomodated, are in conflict with dominant Western modes.

The Bishop Estate and Kamehameha Schools have recently completed a comprehensive Native Hawaiian Educational Assessment Project. Their report has been submitted to U.S. Secretary Bell of the Department of Education. We wish to include their report, findings and recommendations by reference.

Certain salient findings of this Commission are offered in addition:

  • 30% of the school-age population of the State of Hawai'i is Native Hawaiian;
  • Native Hawaiian students have the highest rates of academic and behavioral problems in the State, the highest levels of absenteeism, and the lowest levels of performance and achievement; and
  • only 4.6% of all adult Hawaiians over 25 years of age have completed college, compared to a Statewide average of 11.3%, and only 12.3% have had "some college" compared to a Statewide average of 15.6%.

Employment and Income. Directly correlated to educational achievement are employment and income statistics. Also a factor in these areas are family size and the large number of Hawaiian families with a female or single parent head-of-household:

  • nearly 30% of all Native Hawaiian families fall below the poverty line;
  • Native Hawaiians are disproportionately represented in blue-collar occupations, and under-represented in technical or managerial positions;
  • Native Hawaiians are significantly over-represented in unemployment benefit and Aid to Families with Dependent Children programs.


Based on the findings in all of the social categories, Native Hawaiians demonstrate the same distinct disadvantages experienced by other


indigenous poeples of the United States. Congressional recognition of this unique attribute has resulted in the passage and implementation of Native American programs. Presently, Native Hawaiians are not consistently included in these efforts.

Therefore, we recommend:

  • the inclusion of Native Hawaiians in all Native American programs, without prejudice;
  • a concerted study by federal and state professionals to adequately assess the needs of Native Hawaiians, and to provide additional assistance from existing programs;
  • the consideration of special Native Hawaiian programs at the federal level to redress these disadvantages.

* Summary Of Written Comments Received By The Commission

The official comment period for the Draft Report of Findings of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission (published on September 23, 1982) ended on January 23, 1983. The initial deadline for comments on the Draft Report was November 23, 1982, but it was extended an additional 60 days at the request of several native Hawaiian groups and individuals. By May 1, 1983, the Native Hawaiians Study Commission had received almost 100 written comments on its Draft Report of Findings. All of these written comments are reproduced in full, as required by statute, in the next section of this Appendix. Many of the comments were used in revising the text of the Commission's Draft Report; these comments are referenced in the text where they were used. This summary specifically addresses those comments received by the Commission before February 10, 1983, that, while they were taken into account in the revision, were not specifically used or referenced in the text of the Commission's Final Report. Examples of specific comments that illustrate the points summarized here are given in the footnotes of this section.

The Commission received numerous comments from individuals and organizations requesting an extension of the Commission's original sixty-day deadline for public comments. 1/ Comments cited problems of limited access and availability. To accommodate those who wished to comment, while at the same time meeting its statutory deadline for submission of the Final Report, the Commission extended the deadline for public comment by an additional 60 days, as noted above.

In general, the Commission's Draft Report received mixed reviews. Some commenters called for a "second opinion," 2/ labelled the report a "cursory statement" that should be put on hold, 3/ or called for the report to be rewritten in its entirety. On the other hand, others thought that at least parts of the report were fairly well researched, very informative, 4/ and exhibited a satisfactory degree of competence and objectivity. 5/

One criticism that reappeared several times had to do with "bias." Some writers commented that the descriptions of Hawaiian culture and history had been written from a Western perspective and were therefore biased. 6/ Use of statistics in the report was also thought to be biased by some commenters. 7/ Others stated that because it is a politically-appointed body, the Commission may not be totally objective. 8/ Several comments also noted that the Government "responsible" for the present native Hawaiian situation could not objectively recommend a resolution. 9/ One comment 10/ suggested that to obviate this bias, the Commission should have a majority of native Hawaiian members with the remainder from the non-government sector. [It should be pointed out that Public Law 96-565 specifically states that "not more than three" of the nine commissioners may be residents of the State of Hawaii.] Still another comment suggested that a "mini non-government-member" commission be created to deal with the issue of reparations to be composed of representatives of the minority races of the United States.

Other comments dealing with the bias issue criticized the "kid-glove" treatment King Kalakaua received in the Draft Report. 12/ Many comments alluded to white racism against native Hawaiians and at least one 13/ remarked that the report should


mention more of the "good" that the white people have contributed to Hawaii.

The Commission attempted to address these charges of bias as the report was re-drafted. Considerable revisions were made in the text to reflect "both sides of the story," based on written comments received by the Commission and citing specific comments where appropriate.

The sources used in preparing the Commission's Draft Report were also criticized. Some comments criticized authors used as "sympathetic to the white side" 14/ and others criticized the limited use of primary sources of information. 15/ To address this problem, sources suggested by comments were used in revising the report where possible. In addition, a comprehensive list of references has been included in the Commission's Final Report 16/ to assist readers of the report in further study of the issues presented here.

The Commission received many comments discussing the omission of the culture and religion sections from the Draft Report. 17/ Other comments voiced concern about the protection of native Hawaiian religious rights. 18/ The Commission's Final Report does contain sections on culture and religion, written by native Hawaiian authors.

The Commission received a great number of comments discussing the historical basis for the Commission's legal findings. Many writers disputed the Draft Report's historical analysis, stating that it:

  • Contained inaccuracies; 19/
  • Did not give sufficient weight to the native Hawaiian side of the story; 20/
  • Failed to emphasize the importance of the role of U.S. military force in the overthrow of the monarchy; 21/ and
  • Minimized the role of U.S. Minister John Stevens. 22/

Other comments discussed the statements and actions of President Graver Cleveland after the overthrow as a basis for U.S. Government culpability. 23/

Writers cited the above issues 24/ and others, including present deficiencies of native Hawaiians, 25/ to justify the payment of some type of restitution or reparations to the native Hawaiian people. 26/ Some comments stated that if there is no legal right to such claims under present law, the U.S. Congress should pass legislation creating such a right. 27/

Comments received by the Commission present a wide variety of ideas on how a program of restitution could be implemented. With regard to return of lands, the Commission received 18 newspaper cut-outs from the Hawaiian News (October 1982) asking the Commission to: "Please demand that the U.S. Congress return all of the 144,000+ acres of ceded lands (according to Public Law 88-2 33) to the State of Hawaii immediately!" 28/ Among the proposals received on types of restitution are that:

  • There be no monetary payment, the Federal Government should purchase parcels of land in Hawaii, turn them over to the State, which would use some of the land for State parks and entrust the larger parcels to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to be kept as wildlife sanctuaries. 29/
  • Compensation should consist of reparations in the form of return of all Crown lands, and restitution in the form of restoring the sovereignty of
the native Hawaiian people. 30/ (The Commission also received other comments on restoring sovereignty. 31/)
  • There be no monetary payment but that a "Hawaii Integrated Fleet Support Industry" program be created that would help native Hawaiians financially by creating new jobs. 32/
  • That native Hawaiians be given an unencumbered land base from which revenues could be generated for deposit in a treasury; this treasury would then determine priorities for addressing native Hawaiian deficiencies. 33/
  • Using monetary reparations payments to create educational, training, and cultural programs. 34/

The Commission also received comments criticizing the Federal Government for: pursuing a policy of genocide against native Hawaiians; 35/ using the island of Kahoolawe for bombing target practice; 36/ occupation by the U.S. military of land in Hawaii without paying rent; 37/ and, not exploring a possible breach of trust against the State of Hawaii relating to the Hawaiian Home Lands program and the Hawaii Admissions Act. 38/

On the Hawaiian Home Lands program, one writer stated that a further discussion beyond the Inspector General's report was necessary. 39/ Another writer disagreed with the suggestion in the Draft Report (page 314) that homestead applicants who reject homestead sites be assigned a lower preference priority on the list of applicants and that they be dropped from the listings after a reasonable number of rejections. This writer suggested instead that a family be notified one year in advance of the homestead site availability in order to make the necessary arrangements to move to another island or find other employment, if necessary. 40/

Commenters also sent to the Commission several articles and publications. Among them are:

  • The Sandalwood Trees; Politics and Hope, by Louis Agard; 41/
  • Hawaiian Reparations: Nothing Lost, Nothing Owed, by Patrick W. Hanifin; 42/
  • Sovereignty and Land: Honoring the Hawaiian Native Claim, by Melody K. MacKenzie; 43/
  • The Crown Lands of Hawaii, by Thomas Marshall Spaulding;
  • A three-part capsulized history on U.S. involvement in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by Wayne K. Westlake; 44/
  • Three magazine articles written in 1893 on the prcs and cons of annexation of Hawaii to the United States; 45/ and
  • Six papers written at the direction of, funded and submitted by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs:
Health Section of Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report, by Richard Kekuni Blaisdell, M.D.; 46/
Religion Section of Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report, by Rubellite K. Johnson; 47/
Language Section of Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report, by Larry L. Kimura; 48/
The Demise of the Hawaiian Kingdom: Its Psycho-Cultural Impact and Moral Legacy, by Ramon Lopez-Reyes; 49/
Regarding the Legal Aspects, by Melody MacKenzie and Jon Van Dyke; 50/ and
An Historical Over-View of Hawaii: Pre-Contact to the Present, by Haunani-Kay Trask. 51/



1/ See, for example, comments received from: George R. Ariyoshi, Governor of State of Hawaii; Gard Kealoha; Brooke Trotter; M. Ho'oipo DeCambra; and Herbert Jay (Nahaolelua) Almeida.

2/ Comment received from Charles Trembath, p. 1.

3/ Comment received from The Rev. Abraham K. Akaka, p. 2.

4/ Comment received from Mrs. Violet Ku'ulei Ihara, p. 1.

5/ Comment received from Robert C. Schmitt, p. 3.

6/ See, for example, comments received from: Congressman Daniel K. Akaka, p. 1; Alexander H. Raymond, p. 1; and Everett Kahiliokalani "Sonny" Kinney, p. 7.

7/ Comments received from Michael Tancayo, p. 1; and Haunani-Kay Trask, et al, p. 7.

8/ See, for example, comments received from Congressman Cecil Heftel, p. 1.

9/ See, for example, comments received from Poka Laenui, p. 2.

10/ Comment received from Haunani- Kay Trask, et al, p. 2.

11/ Comment received from Michael Tancayo, p. 2.

12/ Comments received from Elmer Miller, p. 6; and Kenneth Smalley, p. 1.

13/ Comment received from Kenneth Smalley, p. 1.

14/ Comment received from Alexander H. Raymond, p. 1.

15/ See, for example, comments received from: Wayne K. Westlake, p. 1; Pauline N. King, p. 1; Congressman Daniel K. Akaka, p. 2; Violet Ku'ulei Ihara, p. 1.

16/ Suggested in comment received from Congressman Daniel K. Akaka, p. 2.

17/ See, for example, comments received from: Bill Kama, p. 1; John J. Hall, p. 1; Pualani Akaka-Kallstrom, p. 1; Marion K. Morrison, p. 1; Kawaipuna Prejean, p. 2; Kenneth C. "Keneke" Chan, p. 2; and Joseph G. Kealoha, Jr., p. 1.

18/ See, for example, comments received from Haunani-Kay Trask, et al, p. 4; and Kenneth C. "Keneke" Chan, p. 2.

19/ See, for example, comments received from Arthur B. Chun, p. 1.

20/ See, for example, comments received from Keith S. Abe, p. 1.

21/ See, for example, comments received from Clarence K. Kamai, p. 1; and Moanikeala Akaka, p. 1.

22/ See, for example, comments received from Tim Newstrom, p. 3; and John Dominis Holt, p. 1.

23/ See, for example, comments received from Moanikeala Akaka, p. 1; Arthur B. Chun, p. 3; and John Dominis Holt, p. 1.

24/ See, for example, comments received from Bill Kama, p. 2; John M. Agard, Enclosure 1, p. 1; and Kawaipuna Prejean, p. 3.


25/ Comment received from John M. Agard, Enclosure 1, p. 1.

26/ See, for example, comments received from Bill Kama, p. 2; and John Dominis Holt, p. 1.

27/ Comments received from Richard Lyman, Jr., p. 1; and Louis Agard (dated 11/22/82), p. 1.

28/ See also comments received from Val (Al Dyeing and Carpet Cleaning, Inc.); and Tim Newstrom, p. 4.

29/ Comment received from Kevin J. Lopes.

30/ Comment received from Charles Trembath, p. 2.

31/ See, for example, comments received from He Hawai'i Makou, p. 2; K. Hakakona; and Kaolelo Lambert-John Ulaleo, p. 4.

32/ See comment from Wayne Thiessen.

33/ See comment from John M. Agard, Enclosure 1, p. 2.

34/ See comment received from Georgette Kala.

35/ See comments received from: He Hawai'i Makou, p. 1; Kawaipuna Prejean, p. 3; and Everett Kahiliokalani "Sonny" Kinny, p. 6.

36/ See, for example, comment received from Mayleiday M. Van Ostrand.

37/ See comment received from Kawaipuna Prejean, p. 4.

38/ See comment received from Clarence K. Kamai.

39/ See comment from Haunani-Kay Trask, et al, p. 4.

40/ See comment received from Bill Kama, p. 3.

41/ Submitted by John M. Agard.

42/ Received from Patrick W. Hanifin.

43/ This report was received from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs before the publication of the Commission's Draft Report of Findings. Therefore, it is not reproduced in the Appendix with the other comments received by the Commission in response to its Draft Report.

44/ Received from Wayne K. Westlake.

45/ Submitted by L. L. (Bud) Henry.

46/ Part of this paper, "Historical and Cultural Background," is reproduced in its entirety in this Report, in the chapter entitled, "Health and Social Services." The entire paper appears in the Appendix.

47/ The chapter in this Report entitled "Native Hawaiian Religion," is a reproduction of this paper, in its entirety.

48/ This paper is reproduced in its entirety in the "Language" section of this Report, in the chapter entitled "Native Hawaiian Culture."

49/ This paper is referenced in the text of this Report, and appears in its entirety in the Appendix.

50/ This paper is referenced in the text of this Report, and appears in its entirety in the Appendix.

51/ This paper is referenced in the text of this Report, and appears in its entirety in the Appendix.