Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 262, 19 August 1891 — LAND HOLDINGS. [ARTICLE]

LAND HOLDINGS.

The advocacy for the division of the Crown and public lands, have long heen agitated in this eommunity, in such a manner, and upon such a system as will afford opportunities to oar landless population to acquire homesteads of moderate size in fee simple. The rapacity and land-piracy of the missionarieB and their land-grab-bing confreres have left the Hawaiiane all but landless and homeless in their own country. The administration of the puhlie and-Crown landB in the past, if inspired with the aim and object of reducing the native Hawaiian to the condition of a landless serf, could not Tiave tēīīded~more swiftly and eurely in that direction than it has done But we i>lead not alone for the Hawaiian-. We are sufficiently broad in our vision to comprehend ihe thousands of Portuguese and other families of foreign birth or extraction, who reside among us upon the sufferance of grasping landlords, and the placing of whom upon fee aimple homesteads is urgently demanded in the puhlie interest. There is some satrsfaction in noting the sudden, though we hope, sincere eon versiQ» of the missionary organ to a view of the land question nearly in accord with our own. When we. consider the land-grab-bing propensities of those whom the P. C. A. professes to represent, it is subjecting our creduilty to a gerious strain, to plaee any faith in the sincenty of that oi*gan, when it ple*ds, even moderately and modestly, for a more equitable division of land. We suspect that the dishoneBt old sheet is engaged in an attempt to subject this project to the 4amnatipn of faint praise.

In this connection v it is to be observed, that ap article from tbe penof Judge Dole has lately been publiehed, wherein he takes 4dvanced and liberal ground in support . of this project. We do not in the least doubt the good faith of that bonorable gentlemau, though we reniember no very practical work in that direction as having heen done by him during his parliatnentary career.. NotwithBtanding. to do his Honor any injustice, we willingly accord him so mueh credit as of right appertains to an advocacy of our original Homestead Act, —though the provisions of that act were and are altogether inadequate to the heeds of the eommunity. Ka Leo liokis that it should be the policy of thisGovernment to as ' eoon as possible dispose of all publie lands to bona fide settlers, who bring them under cultivation, or othervvise bring them to their highest utility. In no otfier countrv where modern ideas are professed as forming a guide of }>olitical eonduct, do wefind the nationai government posing as landlord, either great or small, and rack-renting a train of teftAnts, in a manner worthy of a non-resident Irish proprie-

tor. Il in our opinipn. axr in£nitely andßhoddyoceupaiion for & sovereign govewiraent t® dabb!e in land transactionB and be continaally fjfmntii?g it» rent roll in the face of the comibuiiity . Besfdes*pflgt experiencefchowB,desf»ite the attempted stringency of the laws aimed at the prevention of favoritism in the admini&tration of these lands, opportunities aro presented and avaiied of, for defeatkig the spirit of those laws. The positlon of a haggling rater of house lōts"is by no means consistent \yitli as a whole, or the Minister of Interior in particu!ar. It has heen urged in the past that this landed proprietorship is eondusive to the best*financia! interests of the government, in that it prodnces a large and reliable revenue, and tbat the puhlie lands oroduce in rents mueh more than any prevailing rate of interest upon their value for purposes of sa!e. But if _it be_ conceded that the production of such revenue is tbe highest aim of enlightened government, why not have the government acquire by the exercise of the right of eminent domain. all the halanee of the halanee of tbe real estate in the kingdom, for purposes of rackrenting? If the principle is good, wh'en applied to 800,000 acres, why not extend it to all the land in the country? Wotild it not rent for more, under the pressure of the present system of tactics, than would pay interest on the purchase price?

We contend that the true interest of this, a8 of every other eountry, lies in the promotion and mainienanee of the principle and pohcy of what, in Europe is cal!ed peasant proprietorship, that is, that smaH holdings shall be made available to the poor, upon just and moderale terms, to the end that a class of resident owners shall be j created and encouraged, by remission of taxes, times in whieh to pay for their homesteads, &c. &c. to so improve and develop the agrjicultural posBibilities of Hawaii that, in the course of a few years, thw taxes assessable upon such lands will more than compensate for any immediate loss of revenue, in volv ed in a*departure from the. present' methods. But suppose the taxes ;tenyears henee should. not -eqūal the rent of to day; Is it not better to have a contented and prosperous rural population developing the latent resources of the Kingdom, and contributing. in a thousand wayß, to its revenue,and Well being, j than to see the lands surrendered to the wild hulloek and the eow-1 boy on the onehand, or the «ēigniories of thē eugar baron on the other, while the government .bailiff rides figuratively &mong: them, with hi3 rent roll and his '\sack ?, ?j During one hundred and fifteen years past» the American tJnion has pursued the policy of getting out of its own hands, and into those of small farmers. all fts yast domain, as fast as the innreasing population. could absorb the puhlie lands*- That policy, in Amerita, j h«s built , afiiagnificent aggregation | of rich and prosperous eommon- 1 wealths. Will not the same poliov, i if wisely applied to Hawsii, pro- \ mote our in 110 lrss a degree?

. 'We wiil have aome remarks 6ubmit upoD the Crown ]3tids, »nd the m»naer of their administration (w rather mal-adaiinißtration), within a few days.