4 .~..‘-... I) a: "- ‘L i‘ firm Vuz'z 1 USE om ABSTRACT THE HAWAIIAN HOMES PROGRAM: A STUDY IN IDEOLOGICAL TRANSPLANTATION by Allan August Spitz Sweeping social and economic upheavals transformed Hawaii during the nineteenth century. The first of these upheavals was the replacement of the ancient Hawaiian re- ligion.by Christianity,z1nd by economic changes through which a subsistence economy was supplanted by a plantation economy. The quasi-feudal system of land tenure character- istic of old Hawaii was gradually replaced by a system of private land ownership. A major change occurring in Hawaii as a product of the plantation system was that the Islands' population was steadily replaced by large groups of immi. grants who soon dwarfed in size the declining population of native Hawaiians. Partly as a result of the decline of the native p0pula. tion, a combination of forces supported a bill aimed at the rehabilitation of the Hawaiian people. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act was enacted by the United States Congress in 1921, and has, since that time, constituted an important element in the social and political structure of Hawaii. Under that Act nearly 200,000 acres of Hawaii's public lands were set aside for a homesteading experiment designed to Allan August Spitz assist that portion of the Hawaiian people which was believed to be most in need of rehabilitation. This dissertation begins with a historical examination of the factors responsible for the decline of the Hawaiians and includes a general discussion of nineteenth century at- tempts to check the decline through the transplantation of homesteading. The implementation of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act is examined from two vantage points: (1) the utilization of the lands provided by the Congress for the rehabilitation of the Hawaiians; and (2) the socio-economic condition of the homesteaders. The examination of the socio-economic condi- tion is based partly on a sample survey of 10 per cent of the homesteader lessees. The concluding section of the dissertation is an attempt to relate this experience to the specific problems encountered in transplanting American democratic institutions and ideology to Hawaii and a more general consideration of the problems related to transplantation of American democracy to any new environment. It is clear from the findings of this dissertation that the number of people living on homesteads has never repre- sented more than a small percentage of the Hawaiian community, and that it has never provided help for many of the needy Hawaiians. Nor has the program aided the number of eligible and Allan August Spitz interested Hawaiians to the degree envisaged by the program's founders. The results have been disappointing regarding the resettlement of homesteaders on farms and the general manner in which the lands have been utilized. In evaluating the Hawaiian Homes program, the most dam- aging inferences which can be drawn from the socio-economic data are that there is not clear evidence of progress in such critical areas as the educational and occupational de. velopment. That is to say, the present homesteaders have not advanced appreciably beyond the levels attained by their parents with respect to education and occupation. The home. steading program, as it now operates, may actually constitute a barrier to the rehabilitation of the Hawaiian people. Both the passage of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and its subsequent failure represented major victories for Hawaii's political and economic elite.‘ The passage of the Act was important, for it satisfied the traditional American pressures for a homestead law and the specific demands of the Hawaiian community for help. A successful program would have represented a major threat to the sugar elite, for it would have encompassed both a demand for the use of sugar lands legally belonging to the Hawaiian Homes program, but under lease to the sugar plantations, and to an increased demand for a homestead program devoid of the ethnic restrictions built into the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. THE HAWAIIAN HOMES PROGRAM: A STUDY IN IDEOLOGICAL TRANSPLANTATION by Allan August Spitz A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Political Science 1960 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES O O- O O O 0- ., O O O O O O O O ., O 0- O 0 iv INTRODUCTION...................... 1 Chapter I. CAUSES OF AND RESPONSES TO THE DECLINE OF THE HAWAIIANS . . . . . . . . . . 9 IntrOductionoooocoooooo 0.00 9 Land Tenure and Sugar.-Factors in the Decline of the Hawaiians . . . . . . . . . 1h The Continued Decline\of the Hawaiians-uthe Twentieth Century . . . . . 29 The Transplantation of Homesteading-- Attempts to Check the Decline 0f the Hawaiians o o o o o o o o o o o o o ”0 Summary 0 o o. o o o o o O o o o o o o o o». as 2. ANALYSIS OF HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION LANDS . . #7 Hawaiian Home Lands Today: Location and. Use 0, Q o . 4r 0 0 o 0‘ O o o O “'7 Land Utilization and Distribution. . . . . . #8 The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act-uThe Early Years 0 o o o o o o o o o o 53 Direct Use or Occupancy of Lands by Homesteaders o o o o o o o o o o o o o 69 Lands Providing Indirect Benefit to Homesteaders o o o o o o- o o o o o o o 85 General Land Uses Not of Special Benefit to Homesteaders. . . . . . . . . . 100 3. THE SOCIOuCULTURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE CURRENT HAWAIIAN HOMES PROGRAM: A DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS . . . . . . o . . . 107 Introduction 0 o o I o o o o o o o o o o O 107 The Nature of the Socio-Cultural Environment. . . . . . . . 109 The Social Profile of the Homesteader. . . . 119 The Significance of the Analysis for Future Planning. a o o o o o o o o o o o o 190 TABLE OF CONTENTS-uContinued Chapter A; TRANSPLANTATION OF AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . IntrOdUCtion . o . o o o o . o . o. The Failure of HBO and Homesteading. Barriers to the Transplantation of Homesteading and the Success of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act-uHawaii's Ruling Elite. .A. .- A Consideration of Other Areas . . . COHCIHBAODS o. 0 o o o o o o c o 0 APPENDIX A o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 APPENDIX B o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . .V. . . . . . . . . iii Page 193 . 193 193 201 . 211 216 221 22h 228 Table 1. 2. 3. 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Representation of Hawaiian Homesteaders by Geographical Location and Represen- tation in the Sample Survey, September 1963 9 0‘ O O O O . O 0‘ O ,C O I O O 0- 0- 0 Representation of Hawaiian Homesteaders by Rural-Urban Classification and Rep. resentation in Sample Survey . . . . . . Age of Homesteaders and Occupational Aspirations for Their Sons . . . . . . . Percentage Distribution of Hawaii's Registered Voters by Race, 1930 and 193,4’000000000000000000 Percentage Distribution of Entire Adult Population, 1910, 1930 and 1950. . . . . Registered Voters by Race, l902-19h0 . . . Citizens and Registered Voters by Race, 1928 O C O 0‘ O O O O C O O O O O O O O 0 High School Attendance, Territory of . Ham11,1926oooooooooooooo Juvenile Delinquency, Honolulu, , 1926-1928000000000000000 Utilization of Hawaiian Home Lands, By Island, October 1963 (Acres) . . . . . . Horner's Description of Lands Chosen for Homesteading Under Hawaiian Homes Act. . Comparison of Acreage Totals and Loca- tions of Land in HR 12683, HR 13500, and the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 192000.000000000000000 Classification of Hawaiian Home Lands, Molokai, By F. G. Krauss, Chairman, Classification Commission, October 1924. iv Page ..3-h . u . 7 .32-33 . 33 . 3h . 36 . 38 - 39 . #9 . 58 . 62 . 67 Table In. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 21+. 25. 26. LIST OF TABLES.~Continued Land Directly Used or Occupied By Homesteaders, October 1963 (Acres) Types of Homesteading of Hawaiian Home Lands and Number of Lots By Island, 1926:1959. o o o o o o 0-0 Homesteader Use of Hawaiian Home Lands By Island, 1926.1950 (Acres) Lands Providing Indirect Benefit to Homesteaders, October 1963 (Acres) Income From Leased Lands, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, By Island, NOVBMber 1963. o o o o o o o o o 0 Hawaii: Principal NonaHomesteader Users of Hawaiian Home Lands, November 1963. a o o o o 0‘ o o o o Kauai: Principal Non-Homesteader Users of Hawaiian Home Lands, November 1963. . Haui: Principal Non-Homesteader Users of Hawaiian Home Lands, November 1963 . . . Oahu: Principal Non-Homesteader Users of Hawaiian Home Lands, November 1963 Non-Homesteader Use of Hawaiian Home Lands Through Lease and Revocable Permits, By Island, NovaMber 1963. Hawaiian Homes Community Pastures on ‘Molokai and Hawaii, November 1963. Land Use Not of Special Benefit to Homesteaders By Use, Island, Acreage, OGtObOI 1963 o o o o o o o o o o e or. o Hawaiian Home Land Occupied Under Executive Order Exclusive of Forest Reserves, By Island, OctOber 1963 o o o o o o o o o o o Page 70 72 73 86 87 9O 91 92 9h 95 99 101 104 Table 270 28. 29. 3°. 31. 32. 33. 3h. 35. 36. 37- 38. 39. no. LIST OF TABLES~-00ntinued Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian Population, 1849.1960I O O O O: O O~ O G .— 0: 0‘ O O O G O Racial Composition of Hawaii's Population, 1920.19600 0 o o o o o o o o 0 Length of Time on Homestead. . . . . . . . . Age of Homesteaders. . . . . . . . . . . . . Age of Homesteader Houses, September 1963. . Number of Permanent Occupants of Home. Steads’ September 1963. o o o o o o o o 0 Number of Siblings Reported by Homesteaders, September 1963 o o o o o o o o o o o o o c Number of Children Among Current Home. steaders, September 1963 . . . . . . . . . Family Income, National, Hawaii and Hawaiian HomeStead o o o o o O O o o o o o Homesteader Automobiles (Newest Car), Year Of MOdel a Q o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Most Recent Visit to a Doctor by a Member of a Homesteader Family . . . . . . Distribution of Labor Force Among Occupational Groups, United States, Hawaii and Homestead, 1870-1963 (Percentages)o 0.. a o o o .1. o o o o o 9 Distribution of Labor Force Among Occupational Groups, Hawaiians, Part- Hawaiians and Homesteaders, 1950 and 1963 (Percentages) e 5 o o o o o o o o o 0 Distribution of Occupational Groups, Male Parent of Current Homesteader and Chief wage Earners in Homesteader Families 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 vi Page 118 118 121 122 123 123 125 125 128 131 133 136-138 1&1 1H2 LIST OF TABLES--Continued Table Page #1. Highest Occupational Achievement of Children From Current Homesteader. Families, September 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . l## #2. Levels Reached in the Educational System, United States, 1899-1959 . . l#7 #3. Educational Attainment of Persons . 25 Years Old and Over, 19#0.l960,. Hawaii-100.000.000.000...0001248 ##. Educational Attainment, United States, , . Hawaii and Homestead, 1960 and 1963. . . . . . l#8 #5. Educational Attainment, Homesteader Father, Homesteader, and Homesteader Spouse...........o....»......150 #6. Educational Attainment of Homesteader Relative to Male Parent, September . . 1963 C O C C C O C O O O C O O C C O O O O C C 151 #7. Educational Attainment of Brothers and Sisters of Homesteaders, September 1963 (PercentageS) . g Q o o o o g Q Q Q o g o 152 #8. Homesteader Attitude Toward Hawaiian ' HomeSPrOgram.....~...~..........156 #9. Major Concern of Homesteaders in Regard , , t0 Departmental Aid. 0 o. r ., o o a» o o o o o o 157 50. Relationship Between Complaints About Departmental Loan Policy and Family Income.—.........A..........o00158 51.. Age of Homesteader and His Educational . Attainment O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 0 162 52. Age of Homesteader and Family Income . . . . o . 163 53. Age of Homesteader and Occupational, 4 Aspirations for Their Sons . . . . . . . . . . 165 vii Table 5#. 55- 56. 57- 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 6#. 65. LIST OF TABLES-Continued Number of People Per HOmesteader House, By Island and Project . . . . . Number of People in Two and Three Bedroom Houses . o o o o o o o o o o 0 Proportion of Hawaiian Extraction and Reading Habits (As Measured by Kind of Newspa ers and.Magazines Read in the Hons o o o o o o o o o o 0 Religion and Reading Habits (As Measured by Kind of Newspapers and Magazines Read in the House) 0 0~o o o o o o o 0 Degree of Involvement in Homestead Associations and Membership in Political Parties. 0 a o a o o o o o o Homestead Association Membership and General Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . Homesteader Educational Attainment and Family Income .0 o o o o o o o o o o o Homesteader Educational Attainment and Reading Habits (As Measured.by Kind of Newspapers and Magazines Read in. the HOUSE) or. o o o o o o o o t o o 0 Homesteader Educational Attainment and Children's Use of Public Library . . Educational Attainment of Homesteader Compared with Male Parent. . . . . . . Educational Attainment of Homesteader and Reaction to Possibility of College for 3 Gifted Child 0 o o o o o o o o 0 Job Stability andege of Chief wage Earner o o c o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 viii Page 167 168 170 172 17# 17# 176 178 178 179 180 182 Table 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 7#. LIST OF TABLES-Continued Educational Attainment of Homesteader and Highest Occupational Achieve-_ mentofanyChild. ooooorooo Receipt of welfare and Family Income . Occupational Achievement of Children and welfare Families . . . . . . . . Family Income and Reading Habits (As Measured.by Kind of Newspapers and Magazines Read in the House) . . . . Job Tenure for Chief wage Earner and Health Insurance 0. o o o o o o o o 0 Health Insurance and Family Income . . Health Insurance and Last Member of Family to ViSit Dentist o t o a o 0 Present and Planned Hawaiian Home, Land Homesteads, 1963. . . . . . . . Hawaiian Sugar Yields, Selected Dates, 1837-1950 o a & o o r o o o 0 Occupation Distribution by Educational Attainment-00tober 1952 and March 1962-~Employed Persons 18 Years.01d andOver.............. ix Page 183 185 186 188 .189 189 190 198 203 226-227 Introduction This dissertation evaluates the attempt to transplant a significant element of the American democratic ideology from the political and social environment in which it was originally formulated and developed to a different political culture. The purpose of such an evaluation is to use Hawaii as a test by which the general feasibility of transferring democratic political institutions and ideology can be assessed. The specific problem on which attention will be chiefly focused will be the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, a homesteading experiment ostensibly aimed at the rehabili- tation of that part of the Hawaiian community seen to be most in need of assistance. The structure and methodology of the dissertation are as follows: Chapter 1 is a chronological examination Of the factors responsible for the decline of the Hawaiians. Emphasis is placed on the system of land tenure existing in nineteenth century Hawaii, the rise of the plantations and the develop- ment of a multi-ethnic community. This chapter includes a general discussion of nineteenth century attempts to check the decline of the Hawaiians through the transplanta— tion of homesteading. -1- -2— Chapter 2 is an examination of the Hawaiian Homes pro- gram from the use of its land. This chapter examines the processes followed in selecting and administering this land and some of the results of those processes. An analysis is made of the uses to which those lands have been put to achieve the ends of the program. Methodologically, the chapter is divided into two sections: (1) a historical examination of the theory of homesteading embodied in the Act, the original designation of Hawaiian Homes Commission lands and the initial settlement of these lands. For this section heavy use is made of historical records available in the State of Hawaii Archives; and (2) a tabular compilation and analysis of the present location and use of Hawaiian Home Lands. This latter section required a comprehensive upudating and correcting of the records of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the Department of Taxation and the Depart- ment of Hawaiian Home Lands of the State of Hawaii. Chapter 3 is partly based on a sample survey of 175 homesteader lessees of Hawaiian Home Lands in the State of Hawaii, conducted during the months of September and October 1963. A ten per cent sample was obtained from an alphabetized listing of l,7#6 homesteaders. Every tenth name was selected from this fixed position with the initial selection based on a table of random numbers. Alternate names were selected by this same method. A personal interview following a preconstructed inter- view schedule was utilized. Lessees from the islands of Hawaii, Kauai, Melokai, and Oahu were interviewed. Since .3- the Maui development had not been completed, no names were included from this region in the sample universe. While no attempt was made to gain proportionate representation from each island, the prescribed method of selection produced an approximate geographical cross-section of the homesteader community.) Table 1 indicates the number and percentage of homesteaders in the State by island and the proportion represented in the study. Again, no attempt was made to stratify the population in terms of rural-type or urban- type of community. However, as Table 2 indicates, approxi- mate proportional representation by community-type was achieved. Table 1 REPRESENTATION OF HAWAIIAN HOMESTEADERS BY GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION AND REPRESENTATION IN THE SAMPLE SURVEY SEPTEMBER 1963 Number of No. in Percentage Island Project Homesteaders Percentage Survey in Survey Hawaii Keaukaha 355 20.3 #7 26.9 waimea 69_ #.0 6 3.# Kawaihae l3 .7 0 -- 437 ' 25-0 53 30.3 Em}. Anahola 53 3.0 # 2.3 Kekaha 12 .7 0 .- 65 3.7 u 2.3 -#- Table 1-Continued Number of No. in Percentage Island Project Homesteaders Percentage Survey in Survey_ Molokai Hoolehua 173 9.9 11 6.3 Kalamaula 55 3.2 6 3.# Kapaakea 38 2.2 3 1.7 O'ne A111 25 1.# 5 2.9 291 16.7 25 19.3 Oahu Nanakuli 38# 22.0 38 21.8 Papakolea-Kewalo 321 18.# 29 16.5 waimanalo 2#8 1#.2 26 1#.8 953 50.6 93 53.1 TOTAL l,7#6 100.0 175 100.0 Table 2 REPRESENTATION OF HAWAIIAN HOMESTEADERS BY RURAL-URBAN CLASSIFICATION* AND REPRESENTATION IN SAMPLE SURVEY Number of Number in Location _ Homesteaders Per Cent Survey, Per Cent Rural 686 33 73 #2 Urban 1,060 67 102 58 *Based upon U. S. census criteria for rural-urban classification. The Department of Hawaiian.Home Lands was asked to assist in arranging the interviews. The local project managers on Melokai, Hawaii, and Kauai were supplied with a list of -5- names and times that the interviewers would be on their respective islands. The project managers were asked to explain the interview project, seek the cooperation of the homesteader, emphasize the confidentiality of the inter- view, and arrange for a suitable period of approximately 1-1/2 hours during which the interview would be held. The splendid cooperation of both the project managers and the homesteaders on the outer islands is attested to by the fact that only four interviews of eighty-four homesteaders, in- cluding alternates, failed to materialize. Interviews were conducted by the author and a group of assistants under his direction. The same general approach was used on Oahu, though the absence of a project manager for this island made the ar- rangement of the interviews somewhat more difficult. Hawaiian Home Lands. staff did the contact work by tele- phone or personal visit and the homesteaders responded well, though not with the same degree of success as on the oute} islands. Some fifteen interviews failed to materialize on Oahu. The coding of the completed questionnaire was done in two stages: (a) the author devised a code to fit all open- ended questions, and (b) responses to questions were coded by the author and student assistants. Statistical analysis of the Hawaiian Homestead community was based primarily on socio-economic variables, though certain attitude variables and other factual data were .6- included. To establish a frame of reference for interpreting the data, a statistical measure of significance was deemed desirable. Such.measurements can give an idea of the magni- tude of the differences between two distributions or the in- tensity of the relationship between these distributions. Correlation analysis was chosen as one of the best available statistical methods for this study. This was especially true for the large table distributions. The use of correlation here is obvious. It is desirable to know the nature of the relationship between two variables (e.g., x and y) so that one event can.be predicted from or related to the other (i.e., y from x). But, in order to do this, with a certain amount of confidence, the degree or strength of the relationship must be known. In any case, if the relation- ship between the variables is weak, there is no point in trying to predict one event from the other. This is the meaning of the interpretation.gignificant in the various analysis and discussions of the tabular presentations. In the present analysis, correlation scores generally were in— terpreted as significant if the probability was less than 5 per cent that such a score could have occurred by chance or random error. In other words, a significant score is interpreted to have a probability of occurring in at least 95 out of 100 cases. ,Moreover, since this is an exploratory study, regression analysis was not deemed necessary. The attempt has been to establish the extent of the relationships between the variables. Exact prediction was of secondary -7- importance. The pattern of "significance" found in the results serves as a general guide in interpreting the findings of the study. In general, a 5 per cent level was accepted as significant. In those cases where clearly no relationship could be established, the results were summarized. Interpretation of the findings in the form presented in Chapter 3 requires of the reader not only concentration on the significant relationships established, but also on the general direction and magnitude of some of these figures indicated in the various tables. In many cases a "significant" distribution was indicated when comparing two sub-groups in terms of proportions. The following is an example: Table 3 AGE OF HOMESTEADER AND OCCUPATIONAL ASPIRATIONS FOR THEIR SONS Any Occupation Other than Ordinary Laborer Age of Homesteader Ordinary Laborer or No Opinion Over 65 9 6 56-65 15 11 #6-55 28 12 36-#5 #6 12 35 or under _31 .__5 TOTAL 129 #6 175 Source: interviews It may immediately be noted in the above table that a -8- significant proportion of homesteaders had some aspirations for their sons which were higher than that of ordinary labor. This is indicated by the totals-.129 as against #6 out of a total of 175 homesteaders.. Again,l the observation made on this distribution was ”More of the younger homesteaders wanted better than ordinary labor jobs for their children and they were more certain of their choices”. This trend is noted in the increasing size of the ratios as one reads the age categories downward from the oldest to the youngest. In summary the statistical presentation in Chapter 3 was primarily employed as an aid in making some observations and generalizations about the Hawaiian homesteader. Chapter # is a summary of the Hawaiian Homes experience and an attempt to relate this experience to the specific problems encountered in transplanting American democratic institutions and ideology to Hawaii. 0n the basis of a consideration of the Hawaii experience, I try to consider the more general problems related to transplantation of American democracy to any new environment. -8- significant proportion Of homesteaders had some aspirations for their sons which were higher than that of ordinary labor. This is indicated by the totals-.129 as against #6 out of a total of 175 hemesteaders. Again, the observation.made on this distribution was “More of the younger homesteaders wanted better than ordinary labor jobs for their children and they were more certain of their choices“. This trend is noted in the increasing size of the ratios as one reads the age categories downward from the oldest to the youngest. In summary the statistical presentation in Chapter 3 was primarily employed as an aid in making some observations and generalizations about the Hawaiian homesteader. Chapter # is a summary of the Hawaiian Homes experience and an attempt to relate this experience to the specific problems encountered in transplanting American democratic institutions and ideology to Hawaii. On the basis of a consideration of the Hawaii experience, I try to consider the more general problems related to transplantation of American democracy to any new environment. CHAPTER 1 Causes of and Responses to the Decline of the Hawaiians Introduction One of the most widespread, important, and difficult areas of concern for social science in the twentieth century has been that of understanding cultural change, particularly as it relates to different political systems. Recent methodo- logical developments in the social sciences have emphasized the utility of models in attempting to understand cultural change in a political system or the failure of a culture to change. In general this approach requires the construction of a model of a political system against which a different area,or segment of a system, can be compared and contrasted.1 A major aspect of the task has been to achieve an understand- ing of ideological transfer——the transplantation of major elements of ideology from one political system to another. 1Some of the most interesting work along these lines has been done by Fred W. Riggs. See especially his "The Use of Models for Administrative Analysis: Confusion or Clarity?" 6 Indian Journal of Public Administration (1960) 225—2#2, and "Agraria and Industria--Toward a Typology of Comparative Administration" in William J. Siffin, ed., Toward the Comparative Study of Public Administration 7(Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1957) 23-116. See also Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man (New York, Doubleday and Company, 1960). -9- w-w-“u~-.--— -10- For Americans the questions to which attention has most frequently been directed concern transplantation of ele- ments of American democracy to areas undergoing the process of economic modernization and social or political change.1 My postwar experience in Japan brought me into close contact with many dimensions of the attempt to transplant elements of American democratic ideology to that political system during the time Japan was functioning under the political structure and policy orientation imposed by the American Occupation. It appeared to me on the basis of my Japanese experience that a dogmatic transplantation of American democratic ideology failed in some important respects. The experience and continued interest in Japan had spe- cial significance for my interest in Hawaii. My extended research work at the University of Hawaii in matters of 1Recent literature related to the subject of trans- planting democracy would include: Werner Levi, "The Fate of Democracy in South and Southeast Asia," 28 Far Eastern Survey (1959): George w. Shepherd, Jr., The_gglitics of African Nationalism (New York, F. W. Praeger, 1962); and Kazuo Kawai, Japan's American Interlude (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1959). Major works on institutional trans- fer would include RObert Scalapino, Democracy and the gggty Movement in Prewar Japan (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1956), and David Apter, The Gold Coast in Transition (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1957 . 2For example, see Kawai, Japan's American Interlude; R. P. Dore, Land Reform in Japan (London, Oxford University Press, 1959); Thomas A. Bisson, Prospects for Democracy in Japan (New York, The MacMillan 00., 19#9); and Robert A. Fearey, The Occupation of Japan (New York, The MacMillan 00., 1950). -11- political and social significance in the State of Hawaii and specific and deep familiarity with one of the more pres- sing areas of legislative concern, the Hawaiian Homes Com- mission Act of 1920, led me to the conclusion that for over a century and a half the native population of the Hawaiian Islands has had a prolonged experience with this process of ideological transplantation and offers an unusually fertile area for study of this phenomenon. This dissertation emerged from my own extended overall interest in the question of transplantation of political ideology along with a growing interest in the changes occurring in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Hawaii. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act is one of a long series of efforts in Hawaii's modern history intended to offset the physical and social decline of the Hawaiians through the provision of farm and residential lands. A series of laws designed to provide homestead lands for Hawaiians failed to cheek the momentum of the decline of the Hawaiians. By 1920 the political power of the Hawaiians had diminished and indices of socio-economic well-being in. dicated that the Hawaiian people were facing a crisis which threatened their very existence. Three major factors can.be identified as having contributed to the decline of the Hawaiians: (1) changes in the system of land tenure; (2) the growth of a plantation system of agriculture; and (3) the creation of a multicracial community in which Hawaiians no longer were a majority. Each factor -12- is closely related to the others. Hawaii's nineteenth century history reveals that American missionaries and their immediate descendants, many of whom were among the closest advisors to Hawaiian royalty, accepted the basic tenets of the democratic ideology which had de- veloped on the mainland of the United States during the nine- teenth century. This was true, for example, in the area of public education where the missionaries and the school system established by them had a strong democratic orientation.1 Under Hawaii's Organic Act, which provided for the government of the Territory, the franchise was guaranteed to all citizens of the United States, including all persons born in the Territory of Asian parents, though the latter could not become naturalized. Other elements of American ideology were introduced. Homesteading, however, was an initial and central point of concern to the missionaries.2 The early impetus for the use of public lands for homesteading stemmed from the missionary advisors to Hawaiian leaders. In the early years, of course, the opposition to homesteading came from the leadership of the Hawaiian community itself, the chiefs. This aristocracy was 1The orientation was democratic in two important ways: (I) it was intended to be a "public" school system open to all; and (2) it taught the principles of democracy in the classroom. 2Homesteading presupposes a democratic system of land tenure, particularly the rights of the lessee to be free from arbitrary dispossession. The movement to give the Hawaiians more security on the land came historically at the same time as the first major changes in land tenure lawbabetween 18#0 and 18500 -13- understandably opposed to democracy. The first attempts at land reform, mainly in the Great Mahele of l8#8, had only limited success viewed as democratic homesteading acts, for they made only a small portion of land available for use by commoners. Later attempts at land reform were strikingly similar in that concessions in law were made to the democratic elements but little land was made available. Whenever laws affecting land tenure came into conflict with the stronger forces representing aristocracy or the sugar oligarchy, the lands provided were of little or no use and carried such restrictions that homesteading never developed. The culmina- tion of the confrontation between the contending forcesl, and the continuing decline of the Hawaiians, led those con. cerned with the plight of the Hawaiians to one final mighty effort at homesteading. In 1920 Hawaii had.many of the foundations for the development of a democratic polity, but the full development still had to wait for more favorable circumstances following the Second WOrld War. The final effort was in the form of the Hawaiian Hemes Commission.Act, which can be viewed as an attempt to transfer a democratic ideological element onto what essentially was still a non- democratic system. To restate the general framework of the dissertation, 1The contest was really between.monarchy-oligarchy and democracy; the missionaries with their democratic moorings and hopes for land reform on the one hand, the monarChy and sugar oligarchy on the other. The common Hawaiians were in the middle 0 -1#— my own interest is in attempting to understand the difficulties met in the implementation of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act within the broader context of Hawaii's modernization and democratic growth, enabling me to explore the hypothesis that there is a negative probability of success in.the trans- plantation of ideological elements between political systems which are unlike in important respects. The most striking fact about the attempts to implement homesteading in the islands is that homesteading represented an ideological strain of American political thought nurtured on the mainland under historical, geographical, and socio-economic conditions which differed in important respects from those in existence in Hawaii. So different were these conditions that any at- tempts to implement such traditional programs were destined to encounter considerable difficulties, if not failure. Continued reflection and consideration on this type of prob- lem is particularly necessary today in a period when the attempts to export American ideology to the developing areas are pronounced, and there is special relevance of these problems to the fields of international politics, international administration and development administration. The failure to relieve the situation of the Hawaiians through transplanta- tion of homesteading shows the kind and nature of problems that may arise in transferring other elements of American democracy to developing areas, Land Tenure and Sugar-,Factors in the Decline of the Hawaiians .Land Tenure The three developments in nineteenth century Hawaii -15- identified in my introduction as related to the decline of the Hawaiians were the changing system of land tenure, the growth of the sugar economy, and the rise of a multi-racial community, we shall note that the numerical and cultural decline of the Hawaiians precedes all other developments and continues to occur even after attempts are made to stem it. The con- dition of the Hawaiians was of serious concern both to Hawaiians and foreigners, though of the latter the missionaries appeared to be the most interested. Answers of the Hawaiians to the problem were not always clear, though an underlying theme was that the Hawaiians should attempt to return to a "fish and p01" existence such as that which had existed prior to the coming of the white man. The missionary response was somewhat similar, though it was greatly influenced by the American.backgrounds of the missionaries themselves who saw American-style homesteading as an answer to the declining position of the Hawaiians. The choice by the missionaries of an element of American ideology is given institutional form in the first land divisions among the commoners and some of the changes in land tenure. These land reform measures frequently were attempts to bring American democracy to Hawaii, and in every case were to bring American democracy into conflict with other forces in the community concerned with the use of Hawaii's limited lands. In 1779 Captain James Cook estimated the population of .16- the Hawaiian Islands to be 1400,000.1 Estimates for the period 18h9—1853 range between 70,000 and 80,000.2 By 1919 the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii believed the best estimates of the then current number of pure Hawaiians to be less than 23,000.3 While Cook's estimates were too high, perhaps by as much as 100,000, it is clear that a startling reduction in the number of pure Hawaiians had taken place between the time of Cook's arrival and the passage of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act in 1920. The arrival of the first missionaries to Hawaii in 1820 came at a time 30 years after the first major impact of the West on Hawaii. A period of demoralizing influence by for- eign sailors and the debilitating impact of diseases had already had a considerable effect in undermining the old political and social order. About 1820 the growth of the whaling industry in the Pacific brought a new, but temporary, prosperity for the Hawaiian Kingdom. Hawaii afforded an ideal location for rest and supplies necessary for the whaling crews who con- tinued to provide the natives with exposure to new Western 1Stanley David Porteus, A Century of Social Thinking in Hawaii (Palo Alto, Pacific Books, 19627 p. 165. 2See Andrew W. Lind, Hawaii's People (Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 1955), p. 27 and Porteus, ibid., p. 165. 3See IStatement by the Legislative Commission of Hawaii in Support of a Bill Providing for the Setting Apart of Por- tions of the Public Lands of the Territory of Hawaii for Use by Hawaiian Citizens of Hawaiian Blood" in the Judd Files, Terri- torial Departments Archives, Honolulu, Hawaii, July, 1920. -17- diseases. Furthermore, a considerable number of native Hawaiians were recruited as sailors, many of whom never returned to the islands. in 1806 official estimate places the figure of Hawaiians sailing on the whalers at 3,000.1 In 1779, at the time of Captain Cook's first arrival, several independent kingdoms existed in Hawaii. Land was- divided in such a way by the king that he chose the choicest lands for himself. Land was assigned by the king to his loyal warrior followers who, in turn, re-allotted the land to their own followers. While quasi-feudal in nature, the system did not tie land holders permanently to the land and claims of the superior were for economic rather than military services.2 Land, however, belonged to the king. The Hawaiian Islands were brought under the aegis of one ruler, Kamehameha I, in the early 19th century. In 182h, with the accession of Kamehameha III to the throne, the political elements of Hawaii's land problems became clearer. By this time major changes in the Pacific area had thrust a number of new forces onto the Hawaiian scene, including major commercial interests in.whaling and sandalwood as well as men of the church. Later the major commercial interests were to turn to sugar. One of the primary factors related to the possibility 1Thayne Miller Livesay, A Stud of Public Education in Hawaii (Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 19325 p. 19. 2Jon J. Chinen, The Great mahele (Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 1958) pp. 5-6. -18- of successful sugar cane agriculture was the system of land tenure.~ A feudal system in which individual parcels of land were distributed and re-distributed throughout the feudal hierarchy did not lend itself to large-scale undertakings. So long as private ownership or long-term leasing of land was discouraged or barred, particularly for foreigners, the consolidation of land necessary in order to accomplish large- scale agricultural production could not be made. The land in Hawaii, however, was especially suitable for plantation agriculture, but the arid and semiaarid conditions which exist in many areas where the best agricultural land is located made expensive irrigation systems necessary.1 It was highly unlikely that Hawaii's developing political system was going to cope with such problems, and only an extremely well-financed private enterprise could possibly be in a position to underwrite such an undertaking.2 Finally, the growing of sugar cane in Hawaii created a composite of capital formation problems which are particularly related to the crop itself as well as Hawaii. The distance frmm ready markets and the consequent high cost of transportation were factors which added to the substantial capital require- ments already necessary due to the two-year nature of the lCurtis Aller, Labor Relations in the Hawaiian Su ar Industry (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1957; p. 10. See also John W. Coulter, Land Utilization in the Hawaiian Islands, University of Hawaii Research Publication #8 (Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 1933) p. 56. 2Pointedly, one of the most enduring problems relative to the homesteading of lands on.the islands of Molokai and Hawaii has been irrigation. See especially Chapter 2 of this Study 0 ~19- crop. These requirements made further demands on scarce capital and helped make mandatory a plantation type of development.1 m Once the commitment to plantation agriculture had been made, the leaders in the agricultural revolution in Hawaii had to consider more carefully the labor problem. There is conflicting evidence concerning the ability and the inclina- tion of the native population to adjust to plantation life. In any event, the 19th century saw the decimation of the Hawaiians as a separate group, and thus precluded their form- ing an adequate labor pool for the plantations. This caused plantations to seek new sources of labor and ultimately changed radically the ethnic composition of the islands. Thus, at first the system of land tenure undoubtedly was itself one factor in handicapping agricultural pursuits in the islands. The scarcity of both investment capital and trained or willing labor added further to the early avoidance of agricultural entrepreneurship.2 Both the problems of in. secure land tenure and an inadequate supply of labor were eventually overcome, but only at the cost of a revolutionary transformation of the political and social structure of the community. Between 1835 and l8h0 a series of events occurred which 1Aller, p. 10. 2Harold W. Bradley, The American Frontier in Hawaii (Palo Alto, Stanford University Press, 1902) p. 238. -20- were to have an undeniable impact upon Hawaii's future. In 1835 the government of Hawaii leased a tract of land located at Koloa on Kauai on a long-term basis. This was to become the site of Hawaii's first plantation. Following the success of the Koloa enterprise on Kauai, other sugar plantations were begun, with the result that in 1838 there were 20 mills run.by animal power and two by water power.1 By 18h0, land was being leased by the king on bid for a term of 25 years. In l8hl the legislature of the Hawaiian Kingdom authorized the leasing of lands on the various islands to foreigners for terms of fifty years.2 The entire prevailing system of land tenure was revolu- tionized with the signing of the Great Mahele in 1808.3 Under the Hahele all land in the Hawaiian Kingdom was to be voluntarily divided among the king, the government, the chiefs u and the tenants. Four million acres were divided as follows: Acres No. of People Crown lands 98h,000 .. Government lands 1,h95,000 .. Chiefst lands 1,619,000 250 Tenants' lands 28,600 11,000 h,126,000 11,250 1Ralph S. Kuykendall, A History of Hawaii (New York, The Macmillan Co., 1926) p. 205. 2Bradley, p. 2&0. 3Chinen, pp. 15-2h. “U. S. Government, Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, The Cane Sugar Industry (Washington, 1917) p. 88. .21- This was followed by the development of a system of land titles, title registration, and modern land tenure. One of the greatest obstacles to the investment of capital had been overcome.1 The major laws affecting the public lands of Hawaii thus date back more than 100 years. One of the first laws to deal directly with the question of public lands was in 1808 with the Mahele. The enactment of the Hahele occurred during a decade of important statutory change insofar as the history of public lands is concerned. Two other related events preceded the 18u8 law, both of which are relevant: (1) In 1839 and 18h0 the rights of tenants were recognized with the prohibition of evictions without cause of tenants living on and cultivata ing the land; (2) In 18h6, the Kuleana Law, part of the "Act to Organize the Executive Departments," provided for sale of lands which tenants lived on and cultivated.2 There were no restrictions in the Mahele governing the dis- position of government lands other than (a) a fiftyuyear limit on leases; (b) a prohibition of land sale to aliens; and (c) the approval of all terms and conditions of sale by 11bid., p. 20. 2r. 1846, p. 99. RLH 1905. p; 1239- .22- the king and the privy council. The Act of July 10, 1850 1 It was more than a removed the disability of alienage. quarter of a century before a public auction was required prior to the leasing or selling of government lands. The passage of the great land reform embodied in the Hahele was undoubtedly in part intended for the benefit of the Hawaiian commoners who already were beginning to decline sharply in numbers. By providing land for a native popula- tion cut adrift from its cultural moorings, it was hoped that a rejuvenation of the size and morality2 of the race would take place. The Mahele did succeed in making land available to a number of commoners at first, but their lack of experience in working with the land or in understanding the potential value of the land made the new land owners easy prey for the growing entrepreneurship of foreigners interested in acquiring land for sugar development. The land was either sold cheaply or never legally claimed in many cases, though the chiefs and their current descendants were to prove some- what more fortunate than the commoners in holding their lands.3 The Hahele was to converge with an 1850 enactment abolishing the law preventing foreigners from acquiring land, 1L. 185h, pp. 1h.15. 2A number of publications by responsible Hawaiian and missionary leaders of the time deplored the lapsing morals of the Hawaiians. The criticisms were not only in Western terms. 3See Bernard Hermann, "Native Welfare in Hawaii," 19 What People in Hawaii are Saying and Doing (1951) p. 2. -23- and in combination with the latter event lead rather dramat- ically to the dispossession of many Hawaiians from the land. Foreigners with available cash and long-range financial ex- pectations found ready sellers. Before too long the land had been sold and, under a new system probably not understood by the bulk of the commoners, could no longer be redistributed by the chiefs. A culture in which the accumulation of con- sumer goods had never been characteristic soon began to pro- duce an impoverished and now landless native, and was gradually entering a period in which peoples from foreign lands would produce competition at a different level. The speed with which the Hawaiians were divested of their land holdings is nothing less than remarkable. By 1862, more than 50 per cent of the land on Oahu was owned by non- Hawaiians, almost all of whom were Europeans and Americans.1 By 1896 the census showed that only 12.8 per cent of all Hawaiians were landowners of any type. Blackman noted that by 1896 only .06 of the soil of Hawaii was owned by pure Hawaiians, almost a total dissipation of the lands granted or made available in the earlier land reform acts.2 The labor question and Hawaii's multi-racial community are both intimately associated with the development of Hawaii's sugar industry. At one point, in 1900, 61 per cent of the more than 90,000 employed persons in Hawaii were employed lWilliam r. Blackman, The Making of Hawaii (London, The MacMillan 00., 1906) p. 161. 2Blackman, Ibid., p. 161. -2h- 1 Very early in the development of by the sugar industry. plantation sugar misgivings were expressed as to how well the native Hawaiians would meet the plantation's labor needs. A simple agricultural life with great emphasis upon sharing did not prepare Hawaiians for an industrialized farming system in which profits were the primary objective and men.were viewed as capital goods. William Hooper, Koloa Plantation's first manager, lamented: "The three years past prove the complete worthlessness of Sandwich Islanders as laborers. ...e For the past three weeks we have employed on an average of #00 kanakas ... equal to 10 white men (poor) or 2-1/2 smart Yankees.“ Yet, the plantations in the early years were dependent upon Hawaiian labor. Disappointment resulted despite the use of various inducements and pressures, in- cluding cooperation with Hawaiian leaders. King Kamehameha III, in 1850, sought the inhabitants of Pitcairn Island as laborers for Hawaiian plantations. The attempt was without success.2 Despite the small promise of Hawaiians as plantation laborers, little was done to seek out an alternative source of supply until the American Civil war, but as late as 1872 3,299 of the 3,921 plantation workers in the islands were Hawaiians.3 Most of the others were Chinese. With the'be- ginning of the reciprocity agreements in 1876, the entire labor 1C. J. Henderson, 'Labor-An Undercurrent of Hawaiian Social History,” 15 Social Process in Hawaii (1951) p. #5 2Everett V. Stonequist, “The marginal Man in Hawaii,“ 1 Social Process in Hawaii (1935) p. 22. 3James H. Shoemaker, “Labor in the Territory of Hawaii," (Washington, U. S. Government Printing Office, 19h0) p. 3h. -25- picture took a dramatic change. The plantations needed labor badly, but plantation life was not appealing enough even to 1 It became increasingly diffi- Asia's impoverished peasants. cult to keep workers on the plantations, especially when op- portunity for an easier life existed in the cities. The plantation offered an ideal arrangement for the production of a staple crop. It was a tight economic unit, however, which offered little social or political flexibility. Prior to 1876 only 1,800 Chinese had come to Hawaii. But by 188#, 12,000 more had been admitted. By 1896 the total was 22,000.. Annexation to the United States in 1898 1The Hawaiians never supplied the main'body of planta- tion labor once the industry really began to develop: See Romanzo Adams, The_§ducation and the Economic Outlook for the Boys of Hawaii (Honolulu, University of_Hawaii*Press, 1928) from which the following was taken: Plantation Laborers Classified by Race at Three Selected Dates 1886 1908 1926 Native Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian... 2,255 1,309 ##5 Portuguese.........s..............-. 39081 39807 1’3h1 Puerto Rican........................ U. 19989 1,073 Spaniflheeocrtee-eeeeeeeeceeeecause-e -. 750 70 Other Caucasian.......-............. 1379 970 62 Chineseecteeeeeoeeeeeoeaeeeeqeuse... 5,626 2,916 1,2h2 Japanese............................ 1’9h9 329771 13,603 Korean.........--................... .6 2,125 7ul FilipinOeeaceeeeeeeoeeceeeeeeeecesee . a. 1#1 25,8“8 All Others.......................... 1,2h9 Inc 19631 Total.................. 1h,539 “63918 “69056 Lind notes that the decline in total Hawaiian population was not as precipitous in Honolulu as in the rural areas. Honolulu's Hawaiian population declined from 10,000 to 8,000 between 1853 and 1900; the figure for all islands showed a decline from 71,000 to 30,000. By 1950 more than #0 per cent of the Territory‘s surviving full-blooded Hawaiians were resident in Honolulu. Lind, Hawaii’s Peo 1e, pp. #5-#6. 1.26- brought the application of the Chinese Exclusion Act to Hawaii with the effective end to Chinese immigration. Long before this, however, plantation.management had shown considerable uncertainty about the Chinese. The strong ambitions of the Chinese to move from the plantations to more urbanized busi- ness undertakings led to a search for new races. By 1886 about 10,000 Portuguese had been brought to Hawaii.1 Japanese immigration came later than that of the Chinese and Portuguese. About 12,000 were in Hawaii just before an- nexation, all as a result of an 1885 treaty with Japan. Nearly 30,000 entered during the first two years after an- nexation and the number of immigrants remained high until 1907 when the "Gentleman's Agreement" ended the Japanese ini'inx.2 With the disappearance of both China and Japan as sources of plantation labor, management turned to the Philippines. Census figures show sharp increases in Filipino population from 2300 in 1910 to 21,000 in 1920 and 63,000 by 1930. In addition, some 50,000 Filipinos had left the islands during this period.3 The overall total of plantation immigrants by 1930 had reached the following levelsxl+ 1Henderson, p. #6. 2Henderson, p. #7. The “Gentleman's Agreement" was an unwritten understanding between Japan and the United States limiting Japanese emigration to the United States. 3Henderson, p. #7. "Lind, Hawaii's People, p. #. -27- Japanese 180,000 Filipinos 125,000 Chinese #6,000 Portuguese 17,500 Koreans 8,000 Spanish 8,000 Puerto Ricans 6,000 The great difficulty in obtaining labor for plantation use reached such proportions in 1882 that the Hawaiian Labor and Supply Co. was organized for the purpose of recruiting and regulating the supply of foreign labor and to reduce the competition for laborers which existed between the several plantations. This period witnessed the transition from Chinese to Portuguese labor. By 1896, shortly after the major land changes brought about by the Land Act of 1895, sugar gained a dominant posi- tion in Hawaii. The.McKinley Act had caused much concern within the sugar industry and, for a time at least, the situ- ation appeared hopeless. The passage of the Wilson Tariff Act in 189# and annexation to the United States in 1898 turned the'tables to the advantage of sugar. Once annexation had taken place, a new surge of capital came in from the mainland. New plantations began operation, others consolidated. In 1900, three-fourths of all the cultivated land in the islands was being used to grow sugar cane.1 lCoulter, Land Utilization in the Hawaiian Islands, p. 65. -28- The area devoted to sugar continued to expand for more than thirty years after annexation, and production per acre has expanded since the 1930's when acreage totals reached their maximum. By the early years of the Wilson administration in washington, sugar faced one of its last major problems in Hawaii. In 1913 profits began to drop sharply, finally reaching an all-time low in that year. The passage of the Underwood Tariff in 1913 was particularly vexing to sugar people for it reduced the protection against Cuban sugar to 1 cent per pound and even that protection was to be removed by 1916. Two things were to help sugar, however. During the Civil War sugar from the West Indies and Louisiana had been eliminated from the New York market, putting a premium price on Hawaiian sugar.. In Werld.War I Hawaiian sugar gained as a result of European sugar beets being out of production in many areas. The price per pound of sugar began a slow but dramatic rise from 3.8 cents in 191#, #.6 in 1915, 5.8 in 1916, to 7.8 in 1917. By may of 1920 the price had reached a phenomenal all-time high of 23.5 cents per pound.1 lKuykendall and Gill, pp. 381-383. Gartley, in his annual report to the stockholders of C. Brewer and 00., called 1920 "the most spectacular year in the history of the Hawaiian sugar in. dustry." Net profits in 1920 amounted to $62.50 per ton, com- pared to an average year during the 1920's of $18.00 per ton. See Allen Bottomley, A Statement Concerning the Sugar Industry in Hawaii; Labor Conditions on Hawaiian Sugar Plantations; Filipino Laborers Thereon, and the Alleged Filipino "Strike” of 192# (Honolulu, Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association, l92#). -29- Not only were prices shoved higher by the war, but the impact of the war on the United States Treasury was also to prove of benefit to the sugar industry. The depleted treasury now sought aid where it could be found, and a sugar tariff promised great income. The danger to Hawaii's sugar industry posed by free sugar was now past. With an expanded market almost guaranteed, an increasingly mechanized and efficient industry had only one great barrier to overcome--that of security of its lands against homesteading experiments and Wilsonian democracy. The Continued Decline of the Hawaiians--the Twentieth Century There were other forces than sugar which looked to the United States for help, for the Hawaiians themselves by the end of the century were becoming aware of the great changes that were taking place throughout the islands. An increasing Oriental population, a stable but relatively small Caucasian group, a declining and inter-marrying native group all made the future for the Hawaiians seem more difficult. The guardian of Crown Princess Kaiulani noted that ”the revolution arose out of a feud of races."1 The economic decline of much of the remaining Hawaiian population continued unabated. At the time of annexation 1Theophilus H. Davies, ”The Hawaiian Revolution." 33 Nineteenth Century (1893) p. 832. He is speaking here of the overthrow of the monarchy which led to the establishment of a provisional government and the Republic. All of this was, of course, a prelude to eventual annexation by the United States. -30- the Hawaiians had almost a monopoly on commercial fishing, though the market was rather rapidly won.by the Japanese.1 The Hawaiians did not adjust as rapidly as the Chinese or Japanese to Western cultural activities and patterns, with the single exception of politics. Shortly after annexation the Hawaiians still held a preferred position in some areas, such as non-plantation employment opportunities. Only the Caucasians, Americans in particular, were able to speak and use English more correctly. For many Hawaiians it had been virtually their mother tongue, a result of long and dedicated service by the missionaries to the education of the Hawaiians. ,Official and clerical po- sitions were open to them and county and public utility jobs were frequently reserved for them.2 At annexation the Hawaiians and part-Hawaiians were among the most literate groups in the islands. Eighty-five per cent of those above six years of age were literate. They thus had the one requisite to exercise the franchise effectively, for only literacy was required in order to vote.. Of those with the franchise, the Hawaiians and part-Hawaiians made up an over- whelming majority,3 which they put to use by completely dominating, in numbers of elected officials, the first two lEdwin Grant Burrow, Hawaiian Americans (New Haven, Yale University Press, 19#7) p. ##. 2Adams, The Education and the Economic Outlook for the Boys of Hawaii, p. 8. 3See: Blackman, p. 2#6; Thrum's Annual, 1899; and U. S. Census, 1896. -31- legislatures.1 This exercise of their suffrage was especially important in a community in.which the majority of the adults were non- citizens. An equally important dimension to their having the vote was that the Hawaiians represented a major threat to all groups in the community, including the sugar barons. For little other reason than this, the sugar interests had to come to an understanding with the Hawaiians. The voting advantage was to hold for some time, as Table 6 indicates. ‘Writing in 1933, Lorna Jarrett still found Hawaiians and part-Hawaiians to be the most numerous office holders, and quite plentiful in all branches of government service and clerical positions. A great many were discovered ‘working as stevedores, fishermen, cattle-raisers and small farmers.2 As the twentieth century progressed, the most striking political fact in Hawaii was the rapidly increasing size and diversity of Hawaii's legally enfranchised electorate. Be- tween annexation and the beginning of Werld war I, the increase was almost nine-fold.3 In this period, the ethnic groups most affected were the Japanese, who sharply increased in number and percentage of eligible voters, and the Hawaiians, who 1Hormann, p. 2. 2Lorna H. Jarrett, Hawaii and Its People (Honolulu, Star-Bulletin Press, 1933) p. 27. 3Lind, Hawaii's People, p. 91. -32- underwent a sharp decline in the same category. The growth and development of the sugar industry had, in its great need for increased labor, produced a situation in which Orientals might become the dominant forces in the community. An ap- parent reaction to this possibility was a combination of Caucasians and Hawaiians to form the nucleus of support for the early politics of the Territory, the passage of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act in 1920, and the great power of the Republican Party in Hawaii until the mid 1950's. In all of these circumstances the gains for the Hawaiians were scant, if any, for when Hawaii's democratic revolution finally was consummated after Werld War II, the Hawaiians remained at the bottom while the Orientals had gained considerable economic and political power-though the Japanese in parti- cular had not yet blended into the social mixtures of the old Caucasian-Hawaiian elite. A decade after the passage of the Hawaiian Homes Act Hawaii's voting population was divided ethnically as follows: Table # PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HAWAII'S REGISTERED VOTERS BY RACE 1930 AND 193# 1930 193#* No. of No. of Voters Per Cent Voters Per Cent Hawaiian 13,262 30.5 14,290 22.9 Part-Hawaiian 3,632 8.3 5,15# 8.2 -33- Table #--Continued 1230 1934* No. of No. of Voters Per Cent Voters Per Cent Portuguese 6,976 16.0 10,29# 16.5 Other Caucasian 7,901 18.3 10,950 17.5 Chinese 3,697 8.5 5,##7 8.7 Japanese 6,012 13.8 13,630 21.9 Others 2,001 #.6 2,662 #.3 Total #3,521 62,h27 *See Andrew Lind, ”Voting in Hawaii,” 1 Social Process in Hawaii(1935) p. #. Table 5 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ENTIRE ADULT CITIZEN POPULATION 1910, 1930 and 1950 1910* 1930 1950 Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian #7.5 25.9 15.8 Caucasian 35.0 #9.# 32.8 Chinese 3.9 8.0 7-7 Japanese .# 12.2 3#.7 Filipino u.5 Other Races 7.5 3.8 Total Number 20,7#8 79,99# 223,615 *1910 figures include only the male citizens 21 years of age and over. Based on Romanzo 0. Adams, Peoples of Hawaii (Honolulu, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1933) p. 16, and Lind, Hawaii's People, p. 91. ‘44 -3h- .mm .a .w- o-css .o-aeom ..-sscm .ss-q .ooasom oo- co- oo- oo- CooH, m-m.aw me-.mm mmm.w~ m::.:- m-w.- asses m.n o.- i: ll ll owm.: new it ll at osoneo -< o.-m :.m- m.m -. o. no-.a~ a-o.a mmw n- n oaossass n.m :.m n.: a.m -.- mo:.a mo:.: -:-.- can me- sacs-so -.om -.mm n.am m.om o.om mmm.w~ mwm.o~ wmm.m .:-:.: ema.m Aomosassscm A ammunaosmv scamsosdo n.3m -.mn w.mm 8.8m m.wm -mm.-m www.m- omw.n- m-m.m owe.w sc-ecssmleasm . . use sea-stem spew omm- omm- c-m- moa- omm- omm- omm- o-m- mom- maoeob Had no vfioo Hem msopob me Honafiz oocm cam-imam- moqm am mumso> seesaw-cam m o-nsa ~35; One of the most interesting phenomena occurring during the 1920's was the great disparity that existed between eligible voters and voting registration. The data from 1928 depict this (Table 7). The data clearly indicate the sharp drop in the size of the Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian total popu- lation and citizen population. Yet, they still had #1.1 per cent of the registered voters, more than double the combined percentage of Japanese and Chinese registered voters. Though they were no longer a majority, the Hawaiians and Part-Hawaiians in combination still had a heavy though declining plurality in politics in 1930 (39 per cent) and in 193# (31 per cent)., At this particular time (1930) American citizens of Japanese ancestry already outnumbered Hawaiians and Part-Hawaiians by almost two to one (92,000 to #1,000). By 1936 the Japanese figure was 111,000 to the Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian figure of 59,000. The relatively strong position of the Hawaiians was necessarily transitory as far as voting was concerned. Children of Oriental immigrants were soon to become the dominant group in Hawaii's public schools and eventually constituted a plurality among the electorate. While in 1910 less than half of the Children in Hawaii's public sChools were of Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Filipino descent, by 1920 they made up 60 per cent of the enrollment.1 The trend continued adversely to the position of the Hawaiians, though 1Hormann, “Integration in Hawaii's Schools," 21 Social Process in Hawaii (1957) p. 6. "““' .Acwm- .eso-es-om o-o-osm no case-easH .s-s-csomv “-SBem s- mposvsoo comm no meaosnefiobo: sonvnsm .uacud .0 osscaom -oonsom o.oo- wam.mmm a.mm awa.m:m asses 3.:m om~.- o.mm a-.an mwmm mmo.m- aaoseo -< n.o- mmw.: n.wm www.mw n.mm oow.:m- onossasa m.m cmm.m w.w mno.n- m.a c-m.nm coon-so “w m.mH Ame-n :.HH mdfi.mm m.w mafiamm omoswsvnem -.-: Nmm.w- m.om noa.wn :.m- :ca.mn ss-asssmnpssm was sea-stem t r msoeob mnoveb macs-vac. macs-vac :e-pcfisnem soap ae-Pso commas-mom mosses-mom sec-Hosd sec-Head Hosea no Idfisnom a- l-mfimmsHo Hs-osm me 9:00 men we .ez no psoo Hem me .ez peso son .62 Hosea amm- modm hm mamao> seesaw-cam :24 mZmu-a-o a o-pss ~37- the increasing numbers of Part-Hawaiians was a relieving fac- tor. By 19#7 Hawaii's 85,000 public school children were divided on an ethnic or racial percentage basis as follows:1 Hawaiians and Part-Hawaiians...22% Caucasianoowm.......c.....o.... 9 Chinese........................ 5 Japanese-......................u6 Filipino.......................10 All Others..................... 8 The deterioration in the educational position of the Hawaiians became clearer during the 1920's, more starkly by far for the pure Hawaiians than for the Part-Hawaiians. Statistics for high school attendance indicate that by 1926 the pure Hawaiian boys were worse off than any group in- cluding Filipino boys, using high school attendance as a measure of well-being. Pure Hawaiian girls were better off than Filipino girls, but considerably worse off than all others. Part-Hawaiians were still better off than the Japanese. Table 8 indicates the data for high school at- tendance in 1926. Occupationally, the Hawaiian's position has likewise deteriorated. Oriental groups were rising slowly through the occupational hierarchy of jobs from unskilled to skilled and the professions. In 1930 Hawaiians were still over- represented among the professional occupations. Since 1930 1Hormann, “Integration in Hawaii's Schools," 21 Social Process in Hawaii (1957) p. 7. .38- their position in relation to Oriental groups has sharply dropped.1 Table 8 HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE TERRITORY OF HAWAII 1926* Number Enrolled Per Cent in High Schools Enrolled Boys Girls Boys Gigl§___ Hawaiian 10# 91 12 11 Part Hawaiian 539 572 #8 56 Portuguese 222 233 16 16 Other Caucasian #50 #66 70 73 Chinese 66# ### 77 5“ Japanese l,#03 7#7 37 20 Korean 91 50 76 #8 Filipino #2 ll 1# 5 *Adams, "The Education and Economic Outlook," p. 10. One aspect of the social disorganization into which the Hawaiian community fell is revealed clearly by Table 9. No simple economic or ecological ordering of delin- quency was apparent at this time. The Hawaiians, well above the Japanese in the economic scale and occupying better resi- dential areas nevertheless were responsible for an abnormally lLind, ”Changing Race Relations in Hawaii," 18 Social Prggess in Hawaii (195#) p. 9. ~39- high number of the juvenile court cases.1 Table 9 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY HONOLULU 1926-1928* Ratio of Delinquency NUmber of Per 1,000 of Public Juvenile and Private School Race Coggt Cases Population Hawaiian 208 169.7 Part-Hawaiian 176 #6.9 Portuguese 173 65.1 Porto Rican 51 167.1 Spanish 7 #6.3 Other Caucasian 26 10.7 Chinese 11# 26.8 Japanese 109 12.1 Filipino , #9 108.1 Korean #3 72.8 Total 960 38-3 *Territorial statistics at that time distinguished.be- tween Portuguese, Porto Rican, Spanish and “Other" Caucasians.. Source: Andrew N. Lind, I'Some Ecological Patterns of Community Disorganization in Honolulu,‘I 36 American Journal of Sociology (1930) p. 215. The twentieth century thus had brought no marked.improve- ment for the Hawaiians., Much concern continued to exist in 1Andrew N. Lind, ISome Ecological Patterns of Community Disorganization in Honolulu,” 36 American Journal of Sociolqu (1930) p. 216. .uo. the community for their improvement, but we shall see how the remedy again was an institution ill-suited for Hawaii‘s polity. The Transplantation of Homesteading-Attempts to Check the Decline of the Hawaiians Homesteading is first recognized in the laws of Hawaii in "An Act to provide for the appointment of agents to sell government lands to the people," passed on July 11, 1851.1 This law attempted to care for those people desiring land who could not qualify under the Kuleana Law. It provided home- steads for those without land. The 1851 statute allowed a maximum grant of 50 acres at a minimum price of 50¢ per acre; the Act of 18532 increased the maximum holding to 100 acres and decreased the minimum price to twelve and one-half cents per acre. The great expansion of homesteading which took place during the post civil war period on the mainland United States was partially reflected in Hawaii by new legislation with direct application to homesteading. The Act of August 29, l88#, entitled "An Act to facilitate the acquiring and settle- ment of homesteads,"3 differentiated between various quali- ties of land by permitting the acquisition of from 2 to 20 acres of dry agricultural land or a maximum of 2 acres of wet land. The price was fixed at appraised value, with the 1L. 1851, p. 52, RLH 1905. p. 12u5. 2L. 1853, p. 55, RLH 1905, p. 12u7. 3L. 188#, c. #5. -#1- right to purchase conditioned upon the erection of a dwelling house on the land and continuous occupation.by the purchaser for a fixed period of years. The Act required that the tract be fenced, though no requirement for cultivation was included. In 1893 the homestead laws were amended and consolidated though no major changes were made.1 Hawaii’s land laws were almost completely overhauled and rewritten in 1895,2 repealing most previous legislation regu- lating homesteading in the islands. Homesteading provided for under the 1893 consolidation was prohibited and an en- tirely new law was structured and definitions set forth. Congressional hearings indicate that one of the strongest arguments made by Governor Dole in favor of the 1895 home- steading provisions is that they were designed to return the Hawaiians to the land, and prevent them from alienating the lands which they received as homesteads under that law. The 1895 law, of the then Republic of Hawaii, established a board of"Commissioners of Public Lands" with the responsibility of managing the public lands. The Land Act of 1895 spelled out a comprehensive approach to homesteading in Hawaii. The Commissioners were given broad powers to lease and sell public lands under a variety of conditions.3 It is quite revealing 1In 1893 the Hawaiian monarchy was overthown and a pro- visional government established. This was followed by the Republic of Hawaii and a new Constitution which provided that lands previously categorized as Crown Lands should become pub- lic lands. 2L. 1895, Act 26. 3Civil Laws 1897. -02- to note that the Land Act of 1895, making land available in several different ways, was never extensively used. The provision of the 1895 law which allowed for homestead leases under a 999 year lease had been especially designed to as- sist native Hawaiian families, but after five years only 86 holdings constituting 1,230 acres had been distributed. Right of purchase leases, on the other hand, had been granted in 329 cases involving more than 16,000 acres.1‘ A At the turn of the century, 521 holdings had been dis- tributed under the 1895 Act, with only one-third of the land involved distributed to native Hawaiians.2 Writing at that time, Blackman noted that "The leases under which this land (the public lands) is held expire from time to time-call of them by 1921; it will thus be possible gradually to break up the large holdings into homesteads and distribute them widely among an agricultural population. Probably this ought to be done, unless, at any rate, the planters in the meantime adopt of their own.motion some method of cooperative produc- tion which would secure a like social result."3 A close examination of the qualifications written into Hawaii’s homesteading laws reveals that little consideration was given to any experience relating to agricultural or pastoral work. Other qualifications abound, however, as the 1Blackman, p. 6#. 2Ibid., p. 6#. 31bid., p. 16#. -#3- following list indicates: (l) citizenship; (2) age over 18 years; Disqualifications were based upon: (1) civil disability for any offense; (2) delinquency in paying taxes; (3) prior false declaration in applying for land under homesteading acts; and (#) ownership of other land in excess of specified amounts. The Organic Act made some administrative changes relating to the public lands,1 but it modified civil qualification when it permitted homesteading under declaration of intent to become a citizen. The general qualifications remained other than agricultural until the passage of Public Law #8# in 1952 which provides for the direct sale of a homestead to any American citizen.who is eligible for a loan under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act.2 No drawing or lot is required.3 Congressional amendments to Hawaii's land laws have been directed at administration, enlargement of the scope of the laws, prevention of abuse and Hawaiian rehabilitation. It is the latter area that I will focus upon in the empirical body of this dissertation. 1Organic Act, section 73. 'An Act to Provide a Govern- ment for the Territory of Hawaii“ took effect June 1#, 1900. See notes to Organic Act, Chapter 1, par. 1. 250 Stat. 525. 3George W. Luter,.Report on Homesteading in Hawaii, 1832: 196 . (Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, 19 1). -##- The Organic Act did recognize the interests of sugar in Hawaii. The Act permitted the omission of withdrawal provisions from public land leases suitable for the cultiva- tion of sugar cane.1 But, perhaps ominously for sugar, the widening impact of American democratic homesteading was also to be noted in the Organic Act, particularly when compared with the provisions of the Land Act of 1895.2 The provisions of the Land Act concerning the opening of land to settlement were not mandatory. The Organic Act, on the other hand, is quite explicit that whenever 25 or more persons with quali- fications of homesteaders make a written application to the Commissioner of Public Lands for the opening of agricultural lands for settlement, the Commissioner of Public Lands was bound to carry out such a request.3 Furthermore, and per- haps even worse for the growth of plantation agriculture, no more than 1,000 acres could be leased to any one planta- tion. 1Organic Act, Par. 73(d). 2In 1911 the Governor of the Territory of Hawaii opinioned that much of the 90,000 acres of public land which had.been distributed for homesteading under the 1895 law"might as well have been cast into the ocean, as far as real homesteading is concerned.” See Lind, An Island Communit (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1938), p. 86. The quotation is from U. 8., Congress, House, Committee on the Territories, l. Bills Referred to Committee, 2 BIlls Re orted from Com- mittee, 3, Reports Made;by.Committee. E, Hearings before Committee;_compiled by B. F. Oden, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., 1912, Vol. II, p. #13.. In 1916 the Commissioner of Public Lands in the Territory reported that nearly two-thirds of all the pro- ducts from homestead lands were sugar cane and pineapples. See Lind, Ibid., p. 86. 3See sections 73(m) and (n) for the mandatory provisions of the Organic Act. .415- SUMMARY The foregoing discussion of the interaction taking place between changes in Hawaii's land tenure system, the growth of a plantation economy, and the rise of a multi-racial and multi-ethnic community is intended to help the reader under- stand the forces which contributed to the decline of the native Hawaiian community. Among the resources available to Hawaii's political leaders which could be used to offset the deleterious impact of western civilization in general, and the above factors in particular, were programs and institutions which had.been developed in the nineteenth century period of nation building in the United States. The primary force behind the attempt to transplant these American democratic institutions was the American missionary community, hOnestly concerned with the serious plight of the Hawaiians and deeply convinced that alternatives used in the United States to solve social problems and raise the quality of American society were also practical solutions for Hawaii's great social problems. Among the alternatives which the missionary community turned to was homesteading. Homesteading was confronted with great barriers to be overcome, included among which was the relative scarcity of arable lands and the growing demands of an increasingly powerful sugar elite for the use of these lands. Historically speaking, the last great attempt to foster a homestead program in Hawaii was publicly justified as a potential cure for the ills which -#6- beset the Hawaiians. The history of that attempt, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, provides the subject matter for Chapters 2 and 3 of this study. The consideration of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act within the problems presented by democratic transplantation will be discussed in Chapter #. The twin forces of a declining Hawaiian culture and population, and continued interest by many in a homestead experiment in Hawaii were to be important factors in the eventual Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.. Marylyn Vause1 has shown how the threats to the sugar industry represented by homesteading were met. In 1920 the poor condition of some of the Hawaiian people and the ominous picture for the future of that group afforded the plantations the opportunity to give the Hawaiians a limited amount of marginal land and thus, in part, satisfy the drive for homesteading. At the same time the plantations were able to exempt sugar lands from home- steading, gain the political allegiance of the Hawaiians, and in the entire process kill any future homesteading in Hamiic, 1M'arylyn M. Vause, "The Hawaiian Homes Commission.Act, 1920' (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Hawaii, 1962). CHAPTER 2 Analysis of Hawaiian Homes Commission Lands Hawaiian Home Lands Today: Location and Use The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands currently is en- trusted with the administration of approximately 18#,000 acres of land. These lands are located on each of the major islands throughout the state. The bulk of this land is lo- cated in the following general areas: Hawaii: Keaukaha, Kawaihae, Panaewa, and Waimea; Kauai: Anahola and Kekaha; Maui: Paukakalo, Kahikinui, and Kula; Molokai: Hoolehua, Kalamaula, Kapaakea, and O'ne Alii; Oahu: Nanakuli, Papakolea, and Waimanalo. On an island basis, this acreage is divided as follows: Hawaii 106,993 Kauai 17,187 Maui 28,965 Molokai 2#,053 Oahu 6,256 l8#,15# -#7- -#8- These data on the portion of public lands set aside for use by qualified Hawaiians represent the most accurate fig- ure obtainable under present circumstances. It is very likely that there are very few areas remaining in the state on which agreement as to ownership has not been reached, at least in cases involving the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.l Many of these agreements have come during the past two years. Land.Utilization and Distribution A generalized picture of the present distribution of the departmental acreage can'be drawn from Table 10. Table 10 is constructed so that two major points may be emphasized: (l) Relatively little land of the total is actually used directly by the homesteaders; and (2) a considerable amount of the land not used di- rectly by the homesteaders nevertheless is of some indirect and considerable benefit to the recipients of grants under this program. The table is divided into three major categories: (1) direct use or occupancy by the homesteader; (2) indirect benefit to the homesteader; and (3) non-direct benefit to or use by the homesteader. It also distinguishes between ”homesteader use" (houselots, agricultural or pastoral lots, community pasture, and farm lots) and “non-homesteader use" (leased sugar and pasture, forest reserves, and 'other').. This categorization suggests that less land than was originally thought is actually being used by the homesteaders. 1The one area of consequence for which total agreement is not complete concerns the Anahola lands on Kauai. .h9- .conc mane no mswassm Hesvsobo one cosmos- mssfin Hopscapuenom snowman masons ace-p mass so anon anon stomach Ho so-w lob-vase Houses cups-H knob mfisobon season-ssNo s4 .cons mans s“ newsman Inousopmoao: es p-Spoa cancoobos so 950 aussHmH mum one me some stomach one s- covcooa m- Hopes m-np no moses oooaa vmeaac cos-m does-ms- humanonm* t m.am www.3m- wmo.n :-.o~ wac.o~ www.m- m-m.sm Aeacstmsm N. we: as c- :m- a- ma- mucosa-Hoom-z. .: m.m -mm.m- il l: mam. - 1:. m:n.nosssmsm ae-ssssoo .n H.n ocean II It coo. ll ll _ Ampsoaoonwd mamas , Iosqmv commonnsm .N m.:n mmm.oo- Noo.m :o-.om n: mnm.w- mmm.-e use; A wasnom so Uomdoq .H Housovnofiom o. s-cosom soon-enm .H- ~.c- -mm.m- mam -- oma.- mam mcm.m- asaoslmpm n.w mom.n- :- ll ems ll mm-.m- caspasm\sossm .n m. Hm:.- m ll ll mam .mm-.- sass .m m. Hem.- mm - ooo.- an m-m eo-omsos .- noueovnoae: an hossasooo so cub econ-n .H #8909 no Hosea undo and: «cMoHoE “scam wanton cob wsoo mom mwmfi mmmoauo nadqmn Wm deflmod onaDmHmEmHn Rz< zenadNHAHBD mandfl mach adHHdkdm Ca OHSGH -50- .mpsoapncmon ossem Homebom nv-B so-wcvasmseo a“ menace hn_covoonsoo ms hsewsobsa mace spasm -oousom o.oo- mm-.sm- mnm.w nwm.m~ mno.sm aw-.aH nmm.mo- asses gamma -.- amn.o: mmn.m o:m.m amm.m non mam.m~ asaoslmpm o.: w::.a can oe- nam.- mom onm.: possesses: .: H.H Gamma Nmnaa II. II II me hmcvwauz .m o.- amm.m- m-e.- ooa.m cum ll :mw.m mossoaom scones .m c.w :m-.- ll it it I: mm-sm- no>womom ease .- , s, . msodsosmoaem 5: 0-D no es e-uosom econ-nisoz .HH- Hoses no vsoo mom Hosea undo -=m= “cacao: HoscM «Harem cab doflflavfloollofi QHRGE -51- Almost 19,000 acres, or 10.2 per cent, of the total of all lands belonging to the department are occupied or used directly by the homesteaders, though most of this land is used as pastures. The bulk of this acreage-.15,159 acres, or 79.8 per cent of all the land directly used by the home- steaders-is located in the Waimea area of Hawaii being used as ranch-pasture land by 55 homesteaders. With the exception of 180 acres in the Kamuela area and some experimental farm- ing by one homesteader on 289 acres in Kauai, farming is limited to rather small parcels, many of which are rather sporadically cared for. The total acreage used for houselots represents less than 1 per cent of all lands belonging to the department. This figure itself must be qualified by pointing out that 1,000 acres of the 1,661 acres in the total are located on Molokai. Approximately 175 homesteaders with pineapple agree- ments on that island are usually permitted to retain ap- proximately five acres of land for houselot purposes. Much of this land is idle, though many of the homesteaders make a serious effort to maintain it in good order. The 1,000 acres of Molokai houselots provide homes for only 291 families; the 295 acres on Oahu care for more than 950 families. While the homesteaders do not directly occupy or use much of the land set aside for their benefit, they do share dramatically in the income or benefits from much of the other land belonging to the department. 12#,626 acres of Hawaiian home lands, or 67.8 per cent of all departmental lands, are -52- used in such a manner as to provide indirect benefit to the homesteaders. The land in this particular category is considered in this study to be of benefit to the homesteaders if it pro- vides: (a) income which is earmarked for departmental use or personal use of homesteaders; or (b) indirect social benefit. Lands leased for sugar, pasture or industrial uses (100,933 acres) comprise 5#.6 per cent of all Hawaiian home lands and provide an annual income of $253,718 (see Table 17). That portion of this income not allocated to the administration ac- count (approximately $200,000 is so allocated) is credited to the development fund. The existence of this source of income and the possible increase of the magnitude of this income in the future is one of the most promising signs that a self- supporting department is within the realm of possibility. A relatively small amount of land in the I'indirect benefit” category (#62 acres) is of significant social and economic importance. While it consists of only 2/10 of l per cent of all the Hawaiian home lands, this acreage provides the space upon.which.the schools, churches, playgrounds, beaches, demonstration farms, and roads are located. Table 10 includes two other categories of indirect benefit which should be mentioned-.1ands subleased to the pineapple companies on Molokai (5,000 acres) and community pastures on Hawaii and Molokai (18,231 acres). Many homesteaders argue that such lands should be categorized as directly used or occupied. Such a categorization does not seem accurate, how- ever, for in each case the homesteader himself is unlikely to -53~ participate in the day-to-day operation of the system. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act-- The Early Years The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 embodied prin- ciples and goals of homesteading greatly divergent from those which had evolved within the continental United States. Limi- tation of benefits to one ethnic group-.persons with one-half or more Hawaiian.blood-was perhaps the most novel departure 1 Furthermore, from previous American homesteading policy. governmental retention of title to homestead land, an important feature of the Act, was at variance with a venerated.American theory that a large class of land-owning farmers provided an essential anchor to a democratic society. The evil consequences of land speculation, most frequently operating to the disad- vantage of native Hawaiians, and apparently incurable under existing mainland homestead laws, provided a rationale for governmental retention of land titles.s Immediate consequences of governmental retention of land titles were the paternalistic provisions for commission management of the homesteading pro- gram. Commission responsibilities at first included choosing a limited area for the first homestead settlement, clearing land and providing water prior to settlement, and screening applicants for homestead leases; later they were to extend into the organization and management of community pastures and the operation of nursery schools. As a homesteading program 1See particularly The Homestead Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 392- -5#- for Hawaiians, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act contemplated a cautious, limited, carefully controlled, but hopefully fool- proof beginning. The joining together of the ideas of homesteading and the social and economic rehabilitation of a group for which the community assumed some degree of responsibility appeared to justify the new concept of homestead policy contained in the Act. Rehabilitation of those considered temporarily unable to adjust themselves to the demands of a Hawaii in the process of industrialization obviously implied a governmentally planned and administered program. One purpose of rehabilitation, how- ever vaguely the overall term was advanced, justified the as- signment of some of the Territoryis less desirable lands to the program.. This argument, perhaps a rationalization, cen- tered on the contention that an easy living to be gained from already developed cane lands might further demoralize the Hawaiians while arduous labor on undeveloped lands could pro- vide the Hawaiians a morale and character-building experience. Further, the choice of lands made in the Act safeguarded the Territory's financial stake in sugar lands managed by large plantations, while starting the program on a small scale gave protection to lands used by large ranchers.1 Section 203 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act desig- nated the public lands "available" to the Hawaiian Homes Commission. However, this section of the Act specifically 1See U. S. Congress, House, Committee on Territories, Hearings on Rehabilitation, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., 1920. -55- excluded: (a) all lands within any forest reservation; (b) all cultivated sugar cane lands; and (c) all public lands held under a certificate of occupation, homestead lease, right of purchase lease, or special homestead agreement. Since the initial passage of the Act these exceptions have caused con- siderable confusion as to what was and what was not Hawaiian Homes Commission land. Additional confusion has been created by the fact that in some instances Congress referred to a broader area of land from which the commission was to select the desig- nated acreage. Although the precise boundaries of lands available to the commission were not made clear in the Act, there was general agreement that the lands were mainly of second or third class. The choice of inferior lands for homesteading resulted from the fact that the Congressional territorial committees involved gave consideration to the idea of the rehabilitation program for Hawaiians simultaneously with their consideration of Hawaiian land law changes. The land laws were being examined because the leases on.many of the Territory's best cane lands were about to expire and these lands would become available for general homesteading. The House Committee on Territories was led to the view, buttressed.by testimony from Secretary of the Interior Lane, that Hawaii could not yet afford to permit its cane lands to be homesteaded; there- fore, homesteading should be limited to the undeveloped or marginal 1ands.1 That the alleged need to preserve the 11bid., p. 123. .56. plantation system was uppermost in the mind of the chairman of the Committee on Territories possibly explains his failure to inquire into the suitability for homesteading of the lands chosen for rehabilitation. The chairman's questions were aimed at determining who currently leased the lands to be designated available, and whether use of them for homesteading would result in any injustices or unnecessary inconveniences to the current lessees. 1 hearing, At a later Senate Committee on Territories objections were raised as to the suitability of lands proposed for Hawaiian homesteads. One witness noted that the American Sugar Company had invested $1.5 million to establish a sugar plantation on the.Molokai lands in question, but had abandoned its investment when engineers estimated the cost of tunneling required to get water to the land at an even higher figure than the amount already expended. If as valuable a crop as sugar could not justify the cost of irrigation, despite a large investment already made, how could homesteading be made to pay? Testimony from a representative of Parker Ranch (Parker Ranch stood to lose 99,000 acres of land under the bill) claimed that the particular pasture lands chosaion Hawaii would be worthless for homesteading or for pasture because of drought conditions which required.moving cattle widely over the island. 1U. 8., Congress, Senate, Committee on Territories, Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, Hearings on H. R2 1350 0, to Amend Act to Provide Government for Hawaii, As Amended, to Establish Hawaiian Homes Commission, and for Other Pur oses, 'Eoth Cong., 3rd Sess., 1920. -57. Furthermore, the Parker representative testified, ranchmen estimated the cost of starting a 2,000-acre cattle ranch at $25,000. Similar objections were raised by a representative from the Raymond Ranch on.maui which stood to lose 25,000 acres of leased land under the bill. (Mr. B. G. Rivenburgh, exucommissioner of public lands for the Territory, testified that the 25,000 acres taken from the Raymond range, "is not in any sense agricultural land. It is not, in a broad sense, grazing land. It is totally a lava flow, unwatered ... not suitable for Hawaiians to take as grazing land, because they would have no land to remove their herds to in time of dry weather." Prince Kuhio, however, indicated his satisfaction.with the lands chosen. When asked at the hearings why he would not prefer the rich cane lands for the Hawaiians, he replied that the Hawaiians couldn't manage to cultivate sugar cane, while maintenance of the plantation system would provide revenues essential for the support of Hawaiian homesteading.1 A more detailed description of the lands was provided for Congressional consideration by Albert Horner2 in a letter to Senator Miles Poindexter. Table 11, an abstracted.version Ibid. 2Horner was a sugar expert of the Hawaiian Canneries Co. (Ltd.). His letter to Senator Miles Poindexter, member of the U. S. Senate Committee on Territories, is reproduced in U. S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Territories, Hawaiian Homes Commission Act I 20 Hearin s on H. R. l 00..., pp. 79- 1. See also MarylanM. vause, "The Hawaiian Homes Com- mission Act, 1920' (unpublished master's thesis, University of Hawaii, 1962). -58- of his description, indicates why it was said that the lands chosen for homesteading, with very few exceptions, were lands that would require great diligence, expense, and knowledge in order to develop successful farming or ranching. Table 11 HORNER'S DESCRIPTION OF LANDS CHOSEN FOR HOMESTEADING UNDER HAWAIIAN HOMES ACT BY ISLAND, APPROXDMATE ACREAGE, AND LAND POTENTIAL Island Acreage Land Potential Hawaii Kamaoa-Puueo Puuhapu Kawaihae I Pauaki Kamoku-KapulenaQNienie Humuula Piihonua 11,000 1,200 10,000 750 12.350 53,000 2,000 Useful for grazing only. for a few months a year, No water for domestic use. Land adjacent to site where a Hawaiian rehabilitation project had been attempted and had failed. IMost suit- able of available lands for homesteading purposes. Same as Kamoa, except less soil covering roCks. Same as above. Third class agricultural in part, and balance second class pasture. water for domestic use would have to be piped in some miles. Fourth class grazing; no water supply; beyond reach of water; almost entirely lava waste with no agri— cultural land. Second class agricultural; annual rainfall 250 inches. .59- Table ll..Continued Island Acreage Land Potential Hawaii (cont'd) Koaki Mahuu 2,000 Rocky, almost solid lava; fertile soil, well situ- ated for fishing. Kauai Upper waimea 15,000 Third class grazing; value- less without fattening lands, rough, rocky, very dry; could produce crops if $1,000,000 spent to bring water. Moloaa 2,500 No agricultural or graz- ing lands. Anahola and Kamalomalo 5,000 Second class agricultural land; would require irri- gation; large part planted to cane and irrigated. Maui Kahikinui 25,000 Third class grazing when held in large tracts; most of land can be grazed only a few months of year because of frequent dry spells; steep and rocky. Kula 6,000 Second class agricultural; crops can.be expected one year out of three. Molokai Palaau ll,h00 With irrigation would pro- duce abundant crops, with. out water is poor grazing land; irrigation project estimated to cost $2,000,000. -60- Table ll--Continued Island Acreage Land Potential (Molokai (cont'd) Kapaakea 2,000 Steep part of mountain; Kamiloloa I and II 3,600 worthless for agricul- Makakupaia 2,200 ture. Kalamaula 6,000 Upper half, second class agricultural land; lower same as Palaau. Oahu Nanakuli 3,000 Rough, rocky, dry; no Lualualei 2,000 value except for its proximity to sea, and fishing rights. waimanalo 4,000 Second class agricultural or cane land, with water might be first class. Source: See U. 8., Congress, Senate, Committee on Territories, Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 12§_. Mr. Horner further noted that the only desirable lands mentioned were waimanalo and Anahola-Kamalomalo which were "cultivated sugar cane lands" and were therefore excluded from available lands. ”In short," says Horner, 'it gives the plantations all arable and the Hawaiians all arid lands?1 Prior to Congressional passage of the Hawaiian Homes Commission.Act of 1921, two other bills regarding Hawaiian homesteading were introduced in Congress. (See Table 12 for 11bid.. p. 81. -61- comparisons of the three bills). A bill introduced in February, 1920, HR 12683, would have made 191,300 acres more or less1 available, while the Act designated 203,300 acres more or less as available lands. The difference is accounted for by the addition of the following lands: Molokai-.5,000 acres for the Leper Settlement; 0ahu-Nanakuli (3,000 acres) under lease to Oahu Railway and Land 00.; Lualualei (2,000 acres) under lease to waianae Co.; Hawaii-waimanu (200 acres), Panaewa, waiakea (2,000 acres), Keaukaha (2,000 acres); Kauai- Anahola and Kamalomalo (2,500 acres) under lease to Makee Sugar Company. Some lands included under HR 12683 were dropped in the Act; 3,000 acres on Hawaii, Kawaihae leased to Parker Ranch and Moloaa, Kauai, 2,500 acres of forest land. These reductions and additions in land designated available do not appear to have had any special significance. Changes of greater significance than those made in available lands designated were the exclusion of all culti- vated sugar cane lands, and all public lands held under a certificate of occupatibn, homestead lease, right of purchase lease, or special homestead agreement contained in the Act but not in HR 12683. This meant that some of the acreage added in the final draft (waimanalo and Anahola-Kamalomalo) actually was excluded. Much of the land designated available was under homestead lease, right of purchase lease, or certificate of occupation. 1The expression ”more or less' is written into the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. COMPARISON OF ACREAGE TOTALS AND LOCATIONS OF LAND IN HR 12683, HR 13500, AND THE HAWAIIAN HOMES -62- Table 12 COMMISSION ACT OF 1920 Island Location of Grant HR 12683 HR 13500 Act Hawaii Kamaoa-Puueo 11,000 11,000 11,000 Puukapu 15,000 12,000 12,000 Kawaihae I 13,000 10,000 10,000 Pauahi 750 750 750 Kamoku-Kapulena 5,000 5,000 5,000 Nienie 7:350 7:350 7:350 Humuula Mauka 53,000 53,000 53,000 Panaewa not in not in 2,000 Piihonua not in 2,000 2,000 Kaohe-Makuu, Puna not in 2,000 2,000 waimanu not in 2,000 200 waiakea Kai (keaukaha) not in not in 2,000 Maui Kahikinui 25,000 25,000 25,000 Molokai Palaau ll,h00 11,000 ll,h00 Kapaakea 2,000 2,000 2,000 Kalamaula 6,000 6,000 6,000 Hoolehua 3,500 3,500 3,500 Kamiloloa I and II 3,600 3,600 3,600 Makakupaia 2,200 2,200 2,200 Kalaupapa not in not in 5,000 Oahu Nanakuli not in 3,000 3,000 Lualualei not in 2,000 2,000 waimanalo h,000 h,000 0,000 Kauai waimea 15,000 15,000 15,000 Moloaa 5,000 2,500 2,500 Anahola & Kamalomalo 2,500 5,000 5,000 TOTAL 191,300 190,300 203,500 Sources: (1) vause, p. 73; and (2) Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. -63- Unlike HR 12683, the Act provided that only certain lands on Molokai and on Hawaii were to be used or disposed of by the Hawaiian HOmes Commission in the first five years. Again, unlike HR 12683, the Act provided that any available land under lease at the time of passage of the Act should not assume the status of Hawaiian home lands until the lease expired or the Commissioner of Public Lands withdrew the lands from lease. This provision was included also in HR 13500. The net effect of changes from HR 12683 to the Act was to make an additional grant of 12,000 acres nominally available while reducing the land actually available to some 37,900 acres. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, section 200, paragraph 3, provided that in instances where the commission was to select lands out of the larger area of available lands, the commission was required to acquire the approval of the Secretary of the Interior and give notice of its selection to the Commissioner of Public Lands before the land selected could acquire the status of "Hawaiian home lands". The se- lections were to be made within three years following the expiration of the first five-year period; selections made thereafter were deemed invalid and of no effect. The commission selected acreage as follows: Location Acreage Total Date of Selection Keaukaha, Hawaii 2,000 June, 192“ Panaewa, Hawaii 2,000 June, 192k waiohulo, Maui 6,000 November, 1926 June, 1929 Humuula, Hawaii 33,000 June, 1929 -6h- Location Acreage Total Date of Selection Pi ihcnia, Hawaii 2,000 June, 1929 Kaohe Makuu, Hawaii 2,000 June, 1929 Waimanalo, Oahu h,000 January, 1931 Section 20“, paragraph 3 was deleted when the Act was amended on March 7, 1928; however, the commission was advised.by the attorney general's office1 on November 27, 1928, that selec- tions made after the eight years specified in the Act would be invalid. All of the selections made by the commission except the h,000 acres in Waimanalo were made within the eight-year period required by the Act. However, since a survey of Hawaiian home lands has never been.made, even to this day, questions arising as to whether a certain parcel is or is not Hawaiian home lands have had to be settled.by mutual agreement of the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Hawaiian Homes Commission. In.most cases, little controversy remains and, for the purposes of this study, the Hawaiian Homes sec- tion of the State Land Inventory will be considered definitive. While section 203 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act designated the above described 203,300 acres as "available lands,“ section 200 reduced the quantity of land actually available to the program to 37,900 acres; 33,700 acres on Melokai, and 0,200 acres on Hawaii. The commission had five years in which to develop a homestead program on these actually available lands of sufficient merit to warrant the continuation 1Hawaii, Opinions of the Attorneys General of Hawaii, Opinion 1515, November 27, 1928. -65- of Hawaiian homesteading. Should the program prove a success, the written approval of the Secretary of the Interior and fur- ther Congressional authorization could make the other lands referred to in section 203 actually available to the commis- sion. The 1925 report of the Hawaiian Homes Commission des- cribes the 'homelands" given for actual settlement as second-class pastoral lands worth about $1.00 per acre in 1918 and rented at that time for five cents an acre.1 F. G. Kraus, a University of Hawaii agriculturalist appointed by Governor Farrington to evaluate Molokai's Hawaiian Homes Commission lands, described the lands on which the homestead experiment was to take place: 'At that time the low lands bordering the sea from Kaunakakai westward were dry and al- most barren wastes, excepting for the algaroba tree."2 These and the open grasslands of Palaau and Hoolehua towards the mountains, as well as the lands of Kalamaula and Kaunakakai to the eastward, were those available for the rehabilitation project. Lower Kalamaula was chosen as the site for the first settlement, named the Kalanianaole Settlement after Prince Kuhio. The plan called for the subdivision of 23 lots of approximately 25 acres each, adjoined by 2,000 acres of 1Report of the Hawaiian Homes Commission to the Le is- lature of Hawaii, 1925, p. 9. ggoport of the Hawaiian Homes Commission to the Legisla- ture of Hawaii, 1923, p. 38. See Table 13 for Krauss report. -66- community pasture. Water for domestic use was brought in from the Waihee Valley, while irrigation water was obtained from an old spring at a cost to the Territory of $20,513. By February 1923, 35 acres of algaroba growth had been cleared, much of the work having been done by settlers with a minimal amount of equipment. Thirteen settlers were on the land. Another 87 acres had been cleared and 278 persons were on the settlement by August, 192h. The commission planned for a second tract in the Palaau and Hoolehua districts consisting of about 80 forty-acre lots suitable for pineapple raising or other dryland farming.1 (See Table 13 for land classification in these areas.) Six- teen of these lots had been surveyed and subdivided by mid- 1920. The commission decided to use the South Hilo lands of Panaewa and Keaukaha in Waiakea for houselots, as they were inappropriate for agricultural use. A considerable degree of interest in these lands on the part of the working people in the Hilo area gave impetus to this decision.2 The status of the land referred to as "available" in section 203 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act caused some confusion in the early years of the homestead program. Some 151,670 acres of land designated "available" were under general leases and included leased land lying within districts from which the commission was to select a certain acreage. 1Report of the Hawaiian Homes Commission, 1925, p. 15. 21bid., p. 1b. CLASSIFICATION OF -67- Table 13 HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS, MOLOKAI BY F. G. KRAUSS, CHAIRMAN, CLASSIFICATION COMMISSIONi-OCTOBER 1920 Designation of Land Potential Use "Upper" Palaau and Hoolehua Lands (0,375 acres) “Lower” Palaau and Hoolehua Lands (10,063 acres) 'Upper' Palaau Lands (230 acres) "Lower" Palaau Lands (260 acres) Kapaakea-Kamiloloa l and 2, Makakupaia 1 (0,600 acres) Kalamaula (below forest reservation and above the First class agricultural land suitable for pineapple production and other dry land field crops. "It will, of course, require careful planning to select the right craps and taking advantage of the most favorable season of the year for preparing the land and for seeding the crops, as well as prac- ticing the best cultural methods, including the devising of rational systems of crop rotation to prevent depletion of the in- herent soil fertility and erosion ...' (pp. 02, 03) 00-acre lots planned. First class pastural land with irrigation, first class agricultural lands-.recom- mended use as community pastures. Dryer than higher lands. Second class agricultural land (due to location) good for pineapple production and general farming. Inaccessibility and limited area which does not permit econ- omical sub-division. Second class pastural land; with flood con- trol and irrigation, would be first class agricultural lands. Flood waters may be a menace . . Second class pastural land. '... one of the poorest areas of land that we have in- spected. It is very dry, rough, and rocky." Couldn't carry over 100 cattle, perhaps only part of year. Estimated cost of making domestic water available, $10,000. First class pastural land, if irrigated, first class agricultural land. Kalanianaole Settle- ment) (2,800 acres) Source: Re art of the Hawaiian Homes Commission to the Legislature of Hawaii, 1923, pp. 01-05. -68- Initially the commission was under the impression that it was entitled to 100 per cent of the rentals from the lands under lease. However, Attorney General Hattewman gave the opinion1 that the commission was entitled to the entire receipts only from those of the so-called "available lands” which it os- tensibly returned to the commissioner of public lands, and were actually under the commission's control, that is, “Hawaiian Home Lands." He determined that "Hawaiian Home Lands"were: (l) the actually available lands, (2) those of the so-called available lands which were not under lease at the time of passage of the Act, and (3) so-called available lands not under lease at the time of passage of the Act and selected by the commission out of a larger area of available land. The ”Hawaiian Home Lands" then included: $121.1 Waimanu 0200 Panaewa, Waiakea 2,000 Keaukaha 2,000 Molokai 333700 9.21.111. Lualualei 2,000 Kauai Waimea 15,000 Anahola and Kamalomalo 5,000 TOTAL 59.900 Since the commission had already received $11,067 from lands 1Hawaii, Opinions, Opinion 1027, December 20, 1922. -69- leased but not selected in 1921, it entered an equivalent liability in its 1923 financial statement. Amendatory legis- lation passed.by Congress on January 3, 1923, provided that ”the entire receipts derived from any leasing of the 'available lands' defined in section 203, these receipts including propor- tionate shares of the receipts from the lands of Humuula Mauka, Piihonua, and Kaohe, of which lands portions are yet to be selected, ... shall be covered into the fund." Repeated requests were made by the commission to be permitted to use the rentals on available lands for administrative costs in order to prevent depletion of revolving fund income. By Act of November 26, 1901, the receipts from the available lands were credited to the Hawaiian home administration account up to the actual budget approved for department use by the legisla- ture. Any greater amount than that needed for the approved budget was credited to the general fund. Prior to this time the department had depended upon special legislative appropri- ation or use of the revolving fund income. In 1958 another amendment permitted the department to retain that amount in excess of its approved budget collected 1 The excess amount is now transferred from available lands. to the development fund. Direct Use or Occupancy of Lands by Homesteaders Less than 20,000 acres of the land entrusted to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is directly used or occupied 1Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, Section 213(f). -70- by the homesteaders. This acreage represents about 10 per cent of the department's lands. The following table pictures the present acreage and location of this land: Table 10 LAND DIRECTLY USED OR OCCUPIED BY HOMESTEADERS OCTOBER 1963 (ACRES) Per Cent Use Hawaii Kauai Mblokai Maui Oahu Total of Total Houselot 318 37 1,000 11 295 1,661 .9 Ranch] Pasture 15,159 - 750 - - 15,909 8.5 TOTAL 16,605 326 1,750 11 299 18.991 10.2 Source: State Land Inventory, as corrected. Table 15 pictures the changes between 1926 and 1959 in the division between house and farm lots. The exclusion of pineapple contract land from the "direct use” category actually considerably reduces the total of farmlots in the earlier years. Table 15 shows a steady increase in the proportion of houselOts to farmlots. At the program's outset there were slightly less than twice as many houselots as there were farmlots. By 1959 there were more than four houselots to every farmlot, and many of the existing farmlots were not under cultivation by the homesteader himself. Table 16 provides some useful material for comparing the present acreage use ratio. These figures suggest a great differential between farmlot and houselot acreage. In fact, -71- however, 6,000 acres of the farmlots were being cultivated by the pineapple companies and not the homesteaders. Diversified Farming Diversified farming was a fundamental goal and a funda- mental problem for the homestead program from its inception. In accord with one ofthe implied purposes of the Hawaiian Homes Commission.Act, the first efforts of the commission were directed at establishing a viable community of subsistence farmers and ranchers on Molokai. The coastal flats at Kalamaula were chosen for the first settlement after agricul- tural specialists had examined the Molokai lands. The 22 farmlots of around 25 acres apiece and the 21 houselots combined with the community pasture (1,800 acres) represented use of about 00 per cent of the land available to the commission at Kalamula. About 10 per cent of the land available was to be used for farm and houselots. Before the settlers arrived, the commission had cut roads, piped in water, developed a demon- stration farm and started the difficult task of land clearing. While land was being cleared and homes erected at the Kalanianaole Settlement in 1923, the commission pushed on to survey, subdivide and locate domestic water sources for the larger settlement planned in the Hoolehua area. Since the expenditure necessary to irrigate the Hoolehua plain1 was out 1By 1923, the engineer assigned to the commission had estimated this cost to have risen to more than $3,000,000. See Jorgen Jorgensen's letter to the commission, in Report of the .Hawaiian Homes Commission to the Legislature of Hawaii, 1923, Pt 33- .depoP ranch: one s- no-scn lace mangoes-a op concomnsm wagon museH no scams-osu one s- seduces n-na .souv loo-u-umsfio Ho mo-Howopcc o-vsosvssaoo cap moms canoe mane page moves on mason. 9H: ufimksm mo onsvonm-woq one cw scammuaaoc uoSom sou-stem on? no uvnonom «consom mufldeH HH4 mom mom -n- nw- mm- em .oa ..suoa stos ness-ma --4 nos onm.~ wwN.H mmw awn on: wnfi *uvoaonsom asses '0 I. i I i I.‘ Man—"db“ 0: II II II I} ll avoHomucm acscm N t D. R i ' madh saw was Ham mom amm it moo-onsom ssoo II II II II H II onsvmsm\:cssm 3N T l. N i. R Quasi-H Hmm mam nnm mom com am- moo-oases gasses II II N m N N onspmsm\ncssm mum mow Hm- mw- mm- ma mason mm cm on mm mm m- moo-onsom «ego-o: mmm- omm- nam- mmm- mnm- mmm- Pom a. oaaa unsan- aha-nema- fiZdAmH Mm macfl ho mmmzbz :24 mfiz<fl Mficm adnHflkdm ho wZHndfiamfizcm ho mflmha m- o-noa .73- omm.w moa.m mmw.m H-o.n mmn.n oases Hoooa mow Ho: Nun mmm way ape-omSom Hosea l N t I .. mad-H II II II 11 I1 mac-omsom asssu mm: 3H: man man :I mnoecopmoaom op deacon waves com com com com 11 cannaom\soaom " i. I III N mad-H mom :Hm mm- mm- r1 moo-oases fi-sss: «mm oo- o:- am- am- anoesopmoSom op eoosog Hopes ll II II II II onsvncm\ncssm D- N C. I C. Dad-H «mm oz“ o:- am- an- moo-oases ease wdmwn onn.n mNm.m :3m.n wmo.: auoueovnoaom es deacon Hopes com com ona com com ouspn.m\sosnm omm.m moa.m Nam.n H-o. mmm.n makes an a: an mm . m- , moo-onsom -oso-om onma 33mm mama NmmH wNmH Pea mo 0955 use-mu Amoncdv ohm-nema- nzoun la“ wmfiommoum casebon .hfifismnne Inc: nonpo use .muson .Homnobow no ambenmad new cash need own“ mouoboo .mOuvaauodu huepwnsm no ne-e: se-sa men-sees esp passes -seee we amm .- segues-a ens ceaseseemseo .- .mnsoh on no Show asafiwsa s when use swans non aw N no open as panacea“ use: meson .ceen Heap Icemamoa you wcuauoo ooo.o-a .ess- -eeeemsa no asusvauofiums new ws-H-ee sse- ooo.m-a .Uomnmpifiou on pom moon mega? mummy Honpe as easy mama Bonn muoumusuv use mmsoa wcwmsepmwmo Has no .m A.mcmu mans :H .mssu movfimonec we: mssoa nomm wcfipsaome ow mason .m no «monowsmv .moom ImoH an moossbum use .muomeopmoae: an Houses asmaomfinn we psoahmnom .N Imam seam maneiobonn law was avenue no omas> commenmns no wceihmm .N .ovmwm an momsoo Aamuoommv dash Famine-obo: lose: :sfiqusm flanges-um one mafiawoo lad Hope: we museums» .memonnmm s“ damages“ «mash we was mmssa ease mopmbuv gsnowmmn was .Hsnswaso Awsfibaebonv assaim opdwonwwm so lame no wcamdoa Benn lwnws .amflvnecumon new dash neon mafiafieo ooo.ooo.mm .~ mpnfiooon #8909 no mom .H mnomsovmoaon ow mneoq .H Ioaem seaflsksm dde mg 3 CE:— Mc dAMME escapee-sag *ofiflobom HO moonflom whoflofi fiofifik HOH momomnflm use 0852 dwma MZDH mazoua as“ mesa no cones .mssn some lemmasi use aofivsnomo .m Iduvmmsmams one Bonn .ooc.oomm demo Pmooxo oonflom sense .mwnoaobonnifi INo 09 we: came one and Sony mkoflofi gum .m Seam new mommmfi memo: and as mnoumasup Has . . no Heauouwnm use no we assess epewonwmd .N .moom was mowneso .m vacuopafi no psoahmm .N A .mpnoahdm Hammad o” 2 wsumoooHo won a“ damn .mnmn nsoa mvaoaobenmia wcuosconm Awmfibaobonv J Ion on op mung ssoH Bonn ones mnomsovmoao: temnobon no “men mama wsfivsuomo Sean mneummsuv Had .H as mmdoa Sony emouopsa .H new no nofipodnvmseo .H nofiom ssmgmks: .mssu mane ea moanoumsdnp mu women: mobonmas no mmoouo a“ ma Sofia: Aasfioommv mash nowpsnwmgnfiams cash anoamofio>en can casebon we assess .N losem asufisksm comb on has mcam no make m=0wvmvwafiq *omcobom no mooumom whonoz meant Hon momomnmm use @882 Uoflflw9¢00ll< MHQmemd .mmcfiveuumeummd Swat mummy «mafia-mama ado onflvmfim-woqa .uoumosw as .onH pod memmmfiaaoo meson sefifisksm «eosmom .uamu pacific-ob Iou op uonuoumcenw mm powuun uobonams no mmooHo a“ vasoid .oansfifisbs 0: Hasnm .mmo- ma Hobo:o-nk .ooo.ooma so eases-m- aweq one es seep-anew finnoam one oaspeamfiwon on» as some? mg ceases on ma page vacuum "vow lung adamwon no pawn mm nomnobew use ouspea Imfiwoq an uobonnns on Pmmfi umsu mama no can -223- .mvfloao>enma- pnoaei them no menfiponnsm new uem: on posseo on em .a .Pfloavnsmou ow wsuwnofi Ion mumma wnwmeoa Bonn uobfiuou mpg-moon oufiwam .no-mmflaaoo no momcomwo obfivsnvmflswi nus asnosow use mo-ueasm Afimuoommv #smeood nofipmnvm-sfifiud Ioaom mafiaskmm macavdpwfififl seaflobom no moonsom uomb on an: whose: news: new momomuflm ucsm we make use 0882 sees-ensuins N-nzmmma -220- APPENDIX B RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATION AND OCCUPATION It is useful to consider the relationship between two of the social factors discussed in this report--occupation and education. It is clear in American life today that pre- ferred occupations are reserved.more and.more for those with satisfactory educational qualifications. The bureaucratiza- tion and professionalization of America's jobs leave less and less room for the untrained son, or the strong back. A society which once demanded high school graduates has begun to place emphasis on college graduates. The future for the fellow who fails to finish high school is becoming more and more diffi- cult. Table A, in which distribution for varying levels of education is examined, serves to emphasize the close relation- ship between jobs and education. Technological developments and higher educational levels during the 50 year period 1910-1960 in the United States had a major impact upon the occupational distribution of the American work force. The overall trend has been away from manual work, and towards higher proportions of professional- technical and general white-collar types of occupations. The data in Table A are significant, particularly when employment projections are made into the next decade. One of the clearest patterns emerging from these projections is that occupational groups with low educational attainment require- ments will offer proportionally fewer job opportunities in the future. The most rapid increase in the number of job -225- opportunities is likely to be in those job categories which 1 require the highest educational credentials, almost always a college diploma. lSee "Employment Projections to 1975," Monthly Labor Review (March 1963) pp. 200-208. 11 Nwma Scum: m- a m mm m- mm Hg m 0H mm AH mm Nmmfi Hanovoo -Amusoh m as “V eucaaoo ma ma Ma mm NH n Nwma nose: m- m- H mm m- _ m Nmm- seneeeo «Auopeamaoov Hooaom Aw-m on em a- e- o- m mwm- sees: mm mm om m- m m mnm- seneseo «Aaeonom swam mnmoh m op humpsoaoaov musoh w me mm :H m w - mwm- mess: on mm m- a m * mmm- Heneeeo -Amusoh w swap awe-V humpmoaoam - Mm m.mm w- m- mm m- m- mwm- ness: 2 m.mm -m m- m- H- m mmm- seaeeeo - uuohoaaie Haves moNom spam mHQMHAuk MHQM—HOB WHOMHOB mQHflm mHfifioduHHO WHOM-HOB QPGAH 6:3 ee-H-amsp ee--am se--am use use .m-ewsssz Hes-enema ens sees-aaeo Heeaem no mess» I-iom mxHeHO .muovo-umonm ammo-amouonm Rdouw mofimeSOOO an :ofipmnwnpmfi: Pcoo mom mmbo nzm nqo wmdfiw mu mzommflm DEVOAmEH Nwmfi mommfi 924 Nmma mHmOBUO BZHEZmdsad Adonedcbmm Mm ZOHBDmHmBmHQ onadfibooo 4 wands Maeslose sesp mmoqs .Hes-w-no s“ uoussoa was mowepsoosem .easep Hes-wane m-sOPmssou no snow uesopnesm sass e as mass .mom .9 Amwma hefiv Bea>em semen hamssez :.NmmH some: .mnounek no peeasaeevd aesoqpeosums .sOPmsseu .m mason “eonsom - m. m - m as m- :e mem- ness: 2 m m m n- m- ow mmm- sepeeeo - «Aouoa no mneoh 3v omoHHoo moNem spam mueunek assumes msoxnoa meaem mHeHofimmo mueunek even use ueaaaxmsb uoHH-Mm ueHHfiMm use use .mnomeses flee-snooe use uowonsaoo aoosom no whee» I-Eom manomo .mnepegnnenm Hesofimmeuonm asenw seawemsooo as so-Pspunvmfin asoo mom MHPO nz< ago mmdfiw ma mZOmmHm mahogmfim Nmmfi momdfi 924 NmmH mmmoaoo azmszhdssd AdonB