Ken Conklin at 20:00, 24 December 2005

2005-12-24T20:00:26Z

Jere Krischel at 04:34, 9 December 2005

2005-12-09T04:34:25Z

New page

was far more rapid than there. The possession of land by foreigners
with strong governments back of them, represented here by men of
war and zealous consuls, had a stimulating effect upon this movement.
It was a transition period; the strength of the feudal despotism was
fast waning and there was as yet nothing of a positive nature to take its
place. This uncertainty in regard to land tenure was a serious obstacle to
material progress. The large landholders—the chiefs an d some to whom
they had given or sold lands—felt a degree of security in their holdings
through the growing sentiment toward permanent occupation and
hereditary succession; but this was insufficient to place land matters
upon a satisfactory footing and to justify extensive outlays in permanent
improvements. But that class of occupiers of land known as tenants,
which class included a large proportion of the common people,
was still in a condition which had scarcely felt the favorable influences
which had begun to improve the status of the chiefs. They were hardly
recognized has having civil rights, although they enjoyed freedom of
movement and were not attached to any particular lands as belongings
of the soil. If a man wanted a piece of land to live on and to cultivate
he had to pay for it by a heavy rent in the shape of regular weekly
labor for his landlord, with the additional liability of being called upon
to assist in work of a public character, such as building a heiau or
making a road or fish-pond sea wall. With all this the tenant was liable
to be ejected from his holding without notice or chance of redress.
That this defenseless condition of the common people was rigorously
taken advantage of by the landholding chiefs and their konohikis, we
have the evidence of those living in this period, including some of the
early missionaries, that it was a feature of the times that large numbers
of homeless natives were wandering about the country. This
want of security in the profits of land cultivation led many to attach
themselves to the persons of the chiefs as hangers-on, whereby they
might be at least fed in return for the desultory services which they
were called upon to perform in that capacity. This practice of hanging-
on or of following a chief for the sake of food was a feature of the
perfected feudalism, when insecurity of land tenure was at its height,
and the word defining it—hoopilimeaai *—probably originated at that
period.
In 1833, Kamehameha III, then 20 years old, assumed the throne,
and soon became deeply interested in public affairs. In many ways
the unsatisfactory status of land matters was pressed upon his attention.
The growing sentiment toward permanence in tenure powerfully
influenced the situation. The defenseless and wretched condition of
the common people in regard to their holdings appealed to his humanity
and to his sense of responsibility as their ruler. The inconsistency
of his sovereign control of all the lands of the Kingdom with any progress
based upon the incoming tide of civilization became more and
more evident every day. The increasing demand among foreigners
for the right to buy and hold land was an element of importance at
this national crisis and doubtless had much to do in hastening the
course of events. The King not only consulted the great chiefs of the
realm, who certainly were in favor of permanence in tenure for themselves,
but he also conferred with foreigners on the subject. In 1836
Commodore Kennedy and Capt. Hollins visited Honolulu in the
U. S. ships Peacock and Enterprise, and during their stay held
conferences with the chiefs, in which the question of land tenure
was discussed. In 1837, Capt. Bruce of the British frigate Imogene
* Uoojiilimeaai—adheriiig for food.

had several meetings with the chiefs in regard to matteri of government,
when, in all probability, land matters were considered. The
influence of Mr. Richards, for a long time the confidential adviser of
the chiefs was undoubtedly very gre^t with the King in leading his
mind to the definite conclusion which he reached in 1839, in which
year, on the 7th day of June, he proclaimed a bill of rights which
has made his name illustrious, and the day on which it was
announced worthy of being forever commemorated by the Hawaiian
people. This document, though showing in its phrases the influence
of Anglo-Saxon principles of liberty, of Bobert Burns and the
American Declaration of Independence, is especially interesting and
impressive as the Hawaiian Magna Chaita, not wrung from an unwilling
sovereign by force of arms, but the free surrender of despotic
power by a wise and generous ruler, impressed and influenced by the
logic of events, by the needs of his people, and by the principles of the
new civilization that was dawning on his land.
The following is the translation of this enlightened and munificent
royal grant:
"God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the
earth in unity and blessedness. God hath also bestowed certain
rights alike on all men and all chiefs and all people of all lands.
" These are some of the rights which He has given alike to every man
and every chief of correct deportment; life, limb, liberty, freedom from
oppression, the earnings of his hands and the productions of his mind—
not, however, to those who act in violation of the laws.
"God has also established government and rule for the purpose of
peace; but in making laws for the nation it is by no means proper to
enact laws for the protection of the rulers only, without also providing
protection for their subjects; neither is it proper to enact laws to enrich
the chiefs only, without regard to enriching their subjects also, and
hereafter there shall by no means be any laws enacted which are at
variance with what is above expressed, neither shall any tax beassessed,
nor any service or labor required of any man in a manner which is at
variance with the above sentiments.
"The above sentiments are hereby proclaimed for the purpose of protecting
alike both the people and the chiefs of all these islands while
they maintain a correct deportment; that no chief may be able to
oppress any subject, but that chiefs and people may enjoy the same
protection under one and the same law.
"Protection is hereby secured to the persons of all the people, together
with their lands, their building lots, and all their property, while
they conform to the laws of the kingdom, and nothing whatever shall
be taken from any individual except by express provision of the laws.
Whatever chief shall act perseveringly in violation of this declaration
shall no longer remain a chief of the Hawaiian Islands, and the same
shall be true of the governors, officers, and all land agents. But if
anyone who is deposed should change his course and regulate his conduct
by law. it shall then be in the power of the chiefs to reinstate him
in the place he occupied previous to his being deposed."
It will be seen that this bill of rights left much to be done in defining
the rights in land granted by it. It appears by the constitution
enacted by the King, the kuhina nui, or premier, and the chiefs, the following
year, that the feudal right of controlling transfers of land was
still retained in the Sovereign, in the following words: "Kamehameha
I. was the founder of the kingdom, and to him belonged all the land
from one end of the islands to the other, though it was not his own
private property. It belonged to the chiefs and people in common,

Template:460-461 - Revision history

Ken Conklin at 20:00, 24 December 2005

Jere Krischel at 04:34, 9 December 2005