Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 6, Number 10, 1 October 1989 — A postscript on the Senator's hearings [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

A postscript on the Senator's hearings

By Clarence F. T. Ching

Were it not tor a httle Japanese girl who was orphaned quite a few years ago, I wonder whether the hearings conducted by Senator Inouye's Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs and the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

during the week of Aug. 7, and the manner in whieh they were conducted, really would have taken plaee. As the senator stated, Congressional hearings usually last three to four hours for one or two days. As those of you who sat through them or saw the video coverage of the hearings know, they were long, 10 to 11 hour hearings, with little or no breaks, over the entire week. The hearings even continued through meal hours and were only briefly interrupted when nature called. Anyway, the Japanese orphan girl on Maui had nowhere to go when she lost her parents. As fate or the gods would have it (or was it only because Hawaiians are the way they are) she was taken home by a Hawaiian eouple who, for a time, cared for her. As ean be imagined, the little girl was very grateful for the aloha and hospitality she received from that Hawaiian eouple and she must have loved and respected them. In later years, after she married and had children of her own, she passed stories about her Hawaiian experiences on to them. That Hawaiian eouple, whoever they were, may have helped to determine to some degree the future course of history for Hawaiians of the present and, for sure, of the future. You've guessed it. The little girl was the mother of our Senator Daniel Inouye. She probably helped him to become sensitized to the Hawaiian world and our problems at an early age. The situation probably took on its true perspective upon the senator's involvement with other indigenous people as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affaris. Spotty press coverage of the event, although representative, has made further comment appropriate in a few significant areas. One of the major issues raised by OHA and others in the hearings involves the Lualualei Hawaiian Home Lands (HHL). Although roughly 2,000 acres of lands were set aside as part of the HHL trust by executive orders in 1930 and 1933, territorial Governor Lawrence Judd, a Washington appointee, granted all but about 475 acres of those lands to the U.S. Navy for an ammunihon depot and transmitting station. It should be noted that the feds practically "ruled" Hawai'i in those days and things could not have been too mueh different if martial law had been dēclared. You historians will remember that the infamous Massie case eame out of that same period. The orders noted that when and if the lands were no longer required by the Navy for national defense they would be restored to their previous status (as lands for homesteading under DHHL). In 1983, however, when DHHL demanded return of the lands, the Navy responded by elaiming that it had fee-simple ownership. DHHL sued but the case was thrown out of Judge Harold Fong's Federal District Court because the court said the 12-year statute of limitations had already run. The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed the District Court's ruling. Unfortunately, the statute of limitations should not have started to run until DHHL had had actual

notice that the Navy was claiming fee-simple ownership. How was DHHL to know that a feesimple title had been claimed? The Navy had gotten legal possession by executive order. But the court disregarded the notice requirement and said that the statute had already run. The court also committed a grave error when it found that the statute had run before the time that it became possible for DHHL to sue the Navy (feds). The principle involved here is that the federal government (and the state government) cannot be sued unless they allow you to, and that eame later. The senator's ability to intervene and his willingness to seek solutions to such legal and moral dilemmas makes his membership on powerful Washington committees impacting in these areas very important to Hawaiians. Another facet about Lualualei that makes it even more disgusting is that the federal government, on one hand, had held those lands in trust, but on the other, claimed ownership. If the court's decision remains in force, the result is that the trustee for those lands would have successfully stolen those lands from the trust. In discussing the Lualualei issue, Senator Inouye was sympathetic and asked whether the issue would move a step closer to resolution if the statute of limitations were lifted. After receiving reassurance that it would, the senator suggested that drafting of a proposed bill to lift the statute should begin. Because the fraud and deceit of the federal government in the Lualualei issue is clear, the senator's intervention is a good beginning in bringing justice to the HHL program. On another note, although most of the testimonies presented at the hearings were genuine and heart-rendering, elements of insincerity and bad faith were also observed. I was particulary outraged by a testifier who, near the end of his testimony, exclaimed "I want my lease! I want my home!" In response to the testifiers' demands, the senator questioned Chairman Ilima Piianaia of the Hawaiian Homes Commission about the specific complaint. Ms. Piianaia said that lease notices for those parcels had gone out the week before. When Rep. Daniel Akaka asked the testifier about the lease notices, the testifier stated that he had indeed received his notice, but that his prior demand for a lease was not a misstatement because he had not signed the lease yet. If we expect and demand justice, then we must first do justice. Another important issue that was again brought up by OHA and others was the exchange of Hawaiian Homes trust lands at the Hilo, Waimea (Hawai'i) and Moloka'i airports for ineome property at Shafter Flats on O'ahu. Because the lands at Shafter Flats were ceded lands, the State of Hawai'i, the trustee who had breached one trust (HHL Trust), succeeded in repairing that breach by violating another trust (the Ceded Lands Trust). Since when is it right for a trustee to take from one trust, and when caught, take from another trust to pay back the first? That's what happened folks. The result of the exchange transaction wasthat OHA lost its 20 percent share of Shafter Flats (Ceded Lands Trust) annual ineome worth $58,000 at that time and DHHL now receivesall of the Shafter Flats ineome. The irony is that the state now has its airport lands and didn't have to pay anything for them. OHA also pointed out in its testimony that by exchanging those airport lands a great potential for commercial ventures by Hawaiian entrepreneurs was lost.

The current value of the lost OHA annual ineome is approximately $250,000 at this time, and, I hope the issue will be settled in the negotiations between OHA and the governor (for the state) for past rents owed to OHA by the State. If, as Senator Inouye claims, he does not hold hearings only for the sake of holding hearings, but that real solutions are likely to eome out of it, then the large amounts of time and effort in researching and preparing testimony for the hearings, and additional costs for attendance, will not be wasted. I and many other Hawaiians await the results with optimism. A quiz — What is Kaiulani Drive of the early 1900s now called? Call Laura at 946-2642. The first caller with the correct answer receives one of my ohai (Sesbania tomentosa) a native coastal plant keiki.