No. 8.
Interview with C. R. Bishop, of Honolulu, April 27, 1893.

Mr. Blount. How long have you lived in these islands?

Mr. Bishop. Since October 12, 1846.

Q. You have spent your life here since then?

A. Mostly. A year and four months is the longest time I have been away. I was here twenty years before I went away at all. I was married in 1850.

Q. To whom?

A. Bernice Pauahi. She was a high chief’s daughter. Her mother was a descendant of Kamehameha I.

Q. You have large landed interests here?

A. Yes; I owned considerable land at times. I had control of large land interests.

Q. And your wife had large interests?

A. Yes; you might call it large interests. Quite large interests by inheritance not very long before she died.

Q. You have had occasion then to give more than ordinary attention to lands in the kingdom?

A. Yes; I think so. I was intimately associated with Judge Lee, who was president of the land commission. We came here together. We roomed together.

Q. You spoke of the land commission; for what purpose was it created?

A. It was created for the purpose of giving title to all the people who had claims to land—the chiefs and the people.

Q. On what principle did they act in giving title?

A. The King and chiefs made this division in 1847. It was then agreed that the people should have the small holdings which they had occupied and cultivated since 1839. That was conceded by the King and chiefs on the advice of the foreigners in the Government and the friends of the natives outside.

Q. Why do you say it was occupied since 1839?

A. That date was fixed upon because it was the year in which the first draft of the constitution defining the rights of the people was made at Lahina. That is the reason why they took this date as a starting point. That was only the draft made there as I understand it. The land commission was for the purpose of giving titles to the chiefs and to the people for the lands which belonged to the chiefs, and which came to the natives under this concession.

Q. What was the principle upon which the lands were divided?

A. The chiefs had been given lands by former kings—by Kamehameha I, especially. They could not sell or lease them without the consent of the King and premier. There were other lands supposed to be the King’s private lands. When the division was made these lands which he claimed were his own were set apart and called crown lands. That was his private estate really, and the others belonged to the chiefs and the people—the Government, the chiefs and the people. The people got their’s out of the Government land and out of the King’s land and out of the chiefs’ land. These Kuleanas—it did not matter whether in the King’s land, the chiefs’ land or the Government land—they got them all the same by putting in a claim and having them surveyed. There were days set for them to come to prove claim. The [Page 686] land commissioner took down evidence and made awards according to evidence.

Q. What do you designate lands which belonged to the King as his private estate?

A. They were called crown lands.

Q. Well, Government lands were intended to support the King in his administration of public affairs?

A. No; he was expected to support himself mostly out of crown land. The appropriations made for the King were comparatively small. The expenses of Government would be paid out of sales of land, rents, taxes, and duties. The Kings down to 1864 had the right and did sell more or less of these lands. They were really their private property.

Q. Well, in this division you speak of made by this land commission, the lands went to what class of persons?

A. They confirmed only the rights of the people to whom mostly the lands belonged. The crown lands was a large amount; the Government got a large share, and the largest part of the remainder belonged to the chiefs.

Q. You make a distinction between Government lands and crown lands?

A. The crown lands belonged to the sovereign. The Government lands belonged to the Government for the support of the Government.

Q. Were the Government lands leased out?

A. Yes, they were leased and they were sold. You might say they are nearly sold out. The Government appointed land agents in nearly every district of the islands, with authority to sell small pieces of land to the natives. It was intended to give land to the natives who were not entitled to lands under the law giving them lands occupied since 1839. It was intended to give them an opportunity to purchase lands. They cut up a large number of the large lands into small holdings, and sold them to natives at very low prices. A large part of them were sold at half a dollar an acre.

Q. Where one had already a holding did they sell to him, too?

A. Yes; I think so. I do not think it was confined strictly to those who did not own lands.

Q. Now, you spoke of the small holdings of land occupied by the natives from 1839 onwards being confirmed by this commission. Did the native occupiers of these Kuleanas generally take steps to have their lands set apart, or did many of them lose their lands by failure to comply with the mode of asserting and fixing their titles?

A. Most of them put in their claims, and had the lands surveyed and got their awards.

Q. You said a moment ago that the government sold land to natives at low prices on account of the fact that they had not gotten the lands assigned to them under the distribution authorized in 1839?

A. No; not lands assigned to them, because in most cases they had not shown any right to take lands.

Q. You mean to say that they were not occupiers of land?

A. They had not been occupiers and cultivators—that is, all the time since 1839, if at all.

Q. Then the natives, under that arrangement, who had not been occupiers of land were homeless?

A. Let me say this: Before this division and before this concession to the natives, allowing them to put in claims which would give them the title to land, they had certain understood rights in the places where they lived, for which they were to do a certain amount of work [Page 687] for the chief, and so long as they did that they had the right to stay where they were, and that has always been recognized. It is even now. There were three days a month of labor. He had no land that he could dispose of.

Q. Was not that true as to all the common class of natives?

A. Yes, that was the title they all had. There would be a family—a number living together. The head of the family would put in a claim for the land which he had occupied and cultivated. Then he had grown-up sons who would want land, and this sale of land to natives gave them an opportunity to become land owners—and gave an opportunity to those who had not been constant occupiers and cultivators of land to buy land for themselves.

Q. Up to that time they had no land?

A. They had no land.

Q. Can you give me some idea of what proportion of the people were not occupiers of land at the time of this sale of lands—1839?

A. That would be difficult; I don’t know that I can.

Q. I do not expect a definite, mathematical answer.

A. But I can not do it. The natives never would have put in these claims and followed them up, if they had not been advised and urged to it mainly by American missionaries and other friends. They were pretty well satisfied to live on in that old-fashioned way. They were slow in sending in these claims and time was extended more than once to give them opportunity to make their claims. I should say that a very large proportion of the heads of families got land either by putting in their claims, or by purchasing small holdings.

Q. Please let me invite your attention to this question. You have alluded to a class of persons who were occupiers of land and those who were not occupiers of land. What was the mode of life of the persons who were not occupiers of land? Were they migratory?

A. More or less so. A good many of them were a sort of servants—attachés of some chief, and there were a considerable number of them sailors. Some were mechanics and fishermen. Some were educated and employed as teachers.

Q. What per cent would you say were not located on lands?

A. There were a good many people who lived about with one another. The natives were very free with each other’s calabashes. A good many lived together—one man having the land and the others living with him. They were exceedingly liberal with each other. One man had plenty of food and the other hadn’t any. The man who had any shared with the man who had none. It was as with the Indians—so long as there was food in camp they all had some. There was a class who spent a large part of their time in fishing, and I do not think that these were cultivators of land, not many of them. The people in the early times before my time became cultivators and fishermen. Those who were fishermen did not do much cultivating.

Q. What was the theory upon which these lands were divided between the King, chiefs, and people—in what proportion?

A. I do not know as to proportion.

Q. About what amount of land was there in a kuleana?

A. All the way from half an acre to ten acres. Some of them perhaps more than ten acres.

Q. What would you say the average was?

A. I should say the average would be between two and three acres.

Q. Was this division in which the native got his first title brought [Page 688] about through the influence of the missionaries with the Grown or Government?

A. Largely by the missionaries and by other foreigners in the Government or out of the Government. It was a foreign idea. They were given in addition half an acre on which to build a house. They could not build on taro land. They had in addition to the land which they cultivated-the right to go to the mountains for timber, for house and fence building and for the ti leaf and for thatch grass. The ti leaf is used in cooking and in packing food and carrying it. They also had the right to fish in the sea belonging to the land of the chief, within certain limits and to certain kinds of fish.

Q. You mean that they got this under this 1839 settlement?

A. Yes; they had all that defined in the law.

Q. He lived principally upon his taro patch and fish?

A. Yes, principally; but in some districts they had some lands on which they cultivated sweet potatoes and bananas. Taro, fish, and sweet potatoes were the principal thing. They raised hogs.

Q. What was their clothing made of?

A. The clothing was formerly made of tapa. At the time I speak of, 1839, they used mostly foreign material—cotton and woolen goods.

Q. Were they generally clothed, or were most of them in a comparatively nude state?

A. In towns they were pretty generally clothed. In the country, except on Sunday, they were partially clothed. They wore very little clothing. You would see a well-educated native in the morning with his male (a strip of tapa or cloth worn around the loins). After he had gotten through with his work he would wash himself and put on something of clothing. If he was a teacher he went to his school completely clothed, but very likely barefooted—most likely barefooted. The clothing in the country was a good deal a matter of ornament and show. On Sunday they dressed up and went to church and came home and threw off their clothing.

Q. Do the natives own much land?

A. There are a good many natives who do.

Q. I do not refer to the descendants of chiefs—I mean the common people.

A. There are a large number of the common people who own lands.

Q. What per cent of them, would you say?

A. That is very difficult to say. These small holdings that were acquired at the time I speak of were too small to be divided—generally were not divided. The young men who have come on since that time do not own land. Many of them have not tried to get any land. These small holdings have descended to heirs, and in many cases are still in possession of the heirs of the original holders.

Q. You do not know the percentage of the land owned by the natives?

A. I do not. The tax collector or assessor could give you a pretty good estimate by taking a little time.

Q. These lands were divided originally so that the Crown got a portion, the chiefs a portion, and the common people a portion.

A. Yes.

Q. These great sugar-planters—from whom do they derive their title? Who were the original patentees of these lands?

A. Mostly the Government and the chiefs; and those chiefs are nearly all of them dead. Scarcely one of them from whom these lands have come is living.

[Page 689]

Q. Do you mean that they have died without making a will or leaving heirs?

A. In very few instances have they any heirs remaining. Some of them made wills and some didn’t. The high chiefs who received these titles and their heirs are mostly dead.

Q. And the lands themselves have gone where?

A. Many of them were sold by those chiefs themselves.

Q. To whom?

A. To different foreigners; to graziers Some natives bought land.

Q. Much?

A. Not so very much.

Q. The bulk of them were sold or given to foreigners?

A. They were not given; they were sold, to a large extent.

Q. I saw some statements in some of your publications that the chiefs generously gave away large areas to foreigners.

A. I do not remember any such case. Kamehameha I gave land to Young and Davis and to other chiefs. He gave them lands, but I do not think Kamehameha III or other Kings or the chiefs ever gave very much land to foreigners. The chiefs were an extravagant people. They had very little idea of economy, and lands to them had but little value. Large tracts of land had but small value. They were not used for anything. They were covered, many of them with grass or ferns, or shrubbery of some sort, and the first use to which these large tracts of land were put was for grazing. The horses increased rapidly; the cattle increased, and a good many lands were occupied for grazing.

The chiefs from the first were careless about property. They had no idea about saving. They got into very extravagant habits during the sale of sandalwood. There was a large sandalwood trade from 1810 to 1825. Traders came here and tempted them with all sorts of handsome goods—sold them vessels and sold them goods. The kings and chiefs got very much into debt, and then had to pay. The only thing they could pay with was sandalwood. I believe the trade here one year amounted to something like $400,000 in sandalwood. They bought broadcloths and satins and vessels and all manner of things—and a good deal of liquor. They got into extravagant habits. They kept on with that kind of habit. They kept getting into debt, and when they got the titles to the land so that they could dispose of them many paid their debts by selling land. They would sell large tracts of land without surveying—sell them by name. The chiefs took titles to their lands by name.

The land commission awarded them by name. The chiefs themselves, during their lifetime got rid of a great deal of land. Some of them left, when they died, debts to be paid. I had the settling of my wife’s father’s estate. He did not own as much land as many of the chiefs. He built a house where the Boston’s sailors have been staying on King street. He built many houses for his people. He was a popular chief and very kind to his people, who were attached to him. He supported a company of soldiers. He had quite a large company—perhaps fifty to one hundred men. So in building and in fine clothing, horses, furniture, etc., they got into debt. I had to sell off in settling his estate quite a quantity of land—fish ponds, and so forth, to get the estate clear. The plantation lands have come nearly altogether from the Government and the chiefs, and considerable of the land is leased.

Q. Who owns what is called the Bishop estate lands?

[Page 690]

A. It is in the hands of five trustees for the purpose of establishing and maintaining two schools; one for boys and the other for girls.

Q. How many acres are there in these lands?

A. About 430,000 acres, a good deal of which is of no value.

Q. What is the income derived from them?

A. About $50,000.

Q. They were lands left by your wife?

A. Yes.

Q. You have been out of the country for some time?

A. Yes; six months.

Q. You were not here during the period of the revolution?

A. No.

Q. What is the feeling of the masses of the people towards the Provisional Government and annexation—those two ideas seem to run together—or have you been here enough to be able to answer?

A. Do you mean natives or people generally?

Q. You can answer it as to people generally.

A. Well, I should think that a large majority of the natives would be against annexation if left to them. Of course the Chinese and Japanese don’t think much about it one way or the other. The Portuguese seem to be in favor of it. As near as I can get at it a large proportion of Americans, a considerable number of Germans, and some English are in favor of it.

Q. If it was left to the people to pass on under your Australian-ballot system, with the present qualification of a voter for the house of representatives, that would likely be the result?

A. They would vote against annexation, I think. They would vote against annexation unless they could see some immediate personal advantage in some way. I do not think they would consider very much what the advantage or disadvantage would be to them. It is a sentiment against any change.

Q. Is there anything of a race feeling in it; that they would rather the Government be under native princes?

A. Yes, I think so. Their preference would be to be ruled by their own people even if everything went to the bad. Things might go to the dogs, they would adhere to that.

Q. Well, your political contests which you have had since 1886—have they been largely on the lines of a struggle for power between the native and the white races?

A. That has been growing. For a long time back there has been something of that disposition on the increase. That feeling has been growing. It has been used more or less through native newspapers and in the elections.

Q. Prior to the constitution of 1887 the Crown appointed nobles?

A. Yes.

Q. Then it was quite easy, with the native vote outnumbering the white, for the Crown and native people to control the legislative body, was it not?

A. Yes; if they had so determined.

Q. Well, in 1886 was not the legislature in control of the crown and native people?

A. I do not remember now how they stood. We have always had a considerable number of foreigners as nobles, and a number always have been elected to the house of representatives. Some years the number of foreigners has been pretty large, and then again not so large. Kalakaua [Page 691] was inclined more to appoint natives. I was made a noble in 1860. I sat in the house when there were two houses for several sessions.

Q. Well, the complaint in the revolution of 1887—one of the complaints—was against his exercise of that power of appointing nobles, was it not?

A. I do not remember.

Q. The constitution of 1887 took it away?

A. Yes. That is, the power which he got partly through the appointment of nobles. They felt he was abusing the power which he had. They complained of him for interfering in the elections and for getting people who he thought would favor any schemes of his, and also in interfering in the appointment of all the minor officers—like tax assessors, tax collectors, and district justices—getting everything as much as possible into his own hands, and of his extravagance. Through such a legislature he could get appropriations made to suit him.

Q. The revolution of 1887 was to change that?

A. Yes; it was to change that. Now, a man can not be elected who is holding any office at all. Giving men these minor offices was one way of paying them.

Q. Has there been discontent with the constitution of 1887 on the part of the Crown and native population more or less since then?

A. Yes; but I do not think the people generally were discontented if they had been let alone. The Crown was discontented all the time from the time of the revolution. It wanted to get power back again.

The shorthand notes of the foregoing have been read to me by Mr. Mills, and it is a correct report of my interview with Mr. Blount.

Chas. B. Bishop.

(Mr. Bishop was on the point of leaving Honolulu for the United States.)