honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser
Posted on: Thursday, December 11, 2003

ISLAND VOICES
Mahele was not fair for tenants

By Lawrence Miike

Lawrence Miike lives in Kane'ohe

Bob Krauss' Nov. 30 column on the Great Mahele got it only half right. Yes, many of the Hawaiians who were successful in obtaining their kuleana during the Mahele subsequently lost them through underhanded means, but no, the original distribution was hardly as fair as Krauss concluded.

Only 13,514 kuleana claims were filed with the Land Commission, of which only 9,337 were awarded. Of the approximately 30,000 acres awarded, it is true that these were valuable agricultural lands, as contrasted to the 4 million acres in crown, government and konohiki lands, much of which was mountains, lava beds or forests.

A typical kuleana comprised a house lot, taro lo'i if sufficient water was available, dryland crops and perhaps pasture lands. At an average size of three acres for these approximately 10,000 successful claims, a typical kuleana was barely sufficient to support its 'ohana. So it is puzzling to me that one can conclude that 100,000 people, or 10 people per 3-acre plot, could have been supported by these 30,000 acres.

But more damning is the way in which the kuleana holders were treated in the Mahele, in contrast to the ali'i. The Land Commission was created in December 1845 and was to have been terminated by Feb. 14, 1848. Between Jan. 27 and March 7, 1848, the king and konohiki concluded their Mahele; and on the next day, March 8, the king divided his lands between the crown and government lands. In November 1846, tenants had been given the right to buy the land they cultivated, but it was not until August 1850 that the process for doing so was enacted into law.

Therefore, the original statute creating the Land Commission expired before the Mahele and subsequent Mahele between crown and government lands were completed. Tenants were given the right to own land only 15 months before the Land Commission was to expire, and the process to acquire those rights enacted into law 2 1/2 years after the Land Commission was to have expired.

Finally, native tenants had to have surveys made at their own expense. The konohiki, on the other hand, received title without surveys and only by the names of the ahupua'a and 'ili.

How could anyone possibly conclude that the native tenants were treated equitably under the Great Mahele?