No. 34.
Interview with Albert B. Loebenstein, of Hilo, Saw ail, surveyor and civil engineer, Tuesday, April 11, 1893.

Mr. Blount. What is your business?

Mr. Loebenstein. I take charge of lands belonging to the Government in respect to rents and suggestions I am pleased to give relative to their reservation, whether best to sell them or what disposition.

Q. Will you tell me in whose hands the lands of the islands generally are?

A. Government lands?

Q. The whole land system?

A. The Crown lands, the Government lands. The amounts of Government land is about 873,000 acres and of Crown over 900,000 acres, throughout the group.

Q. Who owns the residue?

A. Bishop estate and private parties?

Q. What is the amount owned by private parties?

A. I can not say. The report of 1890 will give the figures of that.

Q. Can you tell me as to the holdings of the Kanaka population?

A. They are very small indeed.

Q. Can you give me any figures?

A. I can not. The tax returns would give that most accurately.

Q. To whom should I apply for that?

A. To the minister of finance. I know it is very small, and each year diminishes in amount.

Q. By leases and sales?

A. Mostly by mortgages, which foreclose by nonpayment of interest and principal. The Chinese have a large amount of lands which were originally assigned to Kanakas on these islands.

Q. Have they absolute title?

A. In most instances they hold by lease.

Q. They are not lands which belonged to the chiefs?

A. No; they are lands which come under the head of Kuleanas—small holdings, seldom over 5 acres in extent, and on these islands they are the principal lands which form taro patches and receive irrigation. They are now controlled by the Chinese.

Q. The Chinese are not owners of sugar plantations, are they?

A. No; I believe there is but one sugar plantation owned by Chinese, and that is on the island of Molakai. That has since been sold, and now the only plantation interest owned or controlled by Chinese is one on the island of Hawaii, and more particularly the plantation of Pepeekeo, in the district of Hilo, of which one-third of the capital stock is owned by one C. Afong.

Mr. Loebenstein continuing at 11 o’clock Wednesday, April 12.

Mr. Blount. This is a map of Hawaii?

Mr. Loebenstein. Yes.

Q. What do the various colors represent?

A. The yellow represents land belonging to the Crown, the green that owned by the Government.

Q. And the remainder?

A. The remainder represents individual ownership and other ownership, including lands conveyed by the Government, and also Kuleanas, [Page 871] which represent small parcels conveyed to the original tenants., who resided on the land at the time that the land system was established.

Q. By whom?

A. By Kamehameha III. They were conveyed by the King on confirmation of the land commission subsequent to 1848.

Q. Were not some of them conveyed to chiefs?

A. No; all the lands which were conveyed to the chiefs were merely in reward for services rendered by their ancestors at the time of the conquest by Kamehameha I.

Q. Now, what part of the lands, outside of the Government lands and the crown lands, belongs to what is known as Kuleanas, and what part belongs to individuals and corporations?

A. At the time the awards were made about 11,000 acres in all were conveyed as Kuleanas by the King and privy council. Subsequent to that, and I might say for a short time preceding, sections of land were sold by the King, and subsequently by the Government, and royal patented to individuals—Hawaiians and foreigners—about 290,000 acres in all.

Q. What part of the 290,000 acres did the natives get?

A. On the Island of Hawaii, two-thirds; this is approximate. I want to be on the safe side, giving the Hawaiians the benefit of the ratio. Then there remained, of course, the lands which are still owned by the Government, and also those which come under the crown lands proper. On figuring up the area of the crown lands of Hawaii, allowing for those lands whose area is not correctly known, I should say there were over 625,000 acres of crown lands on the Island of Hawaii. There are nearly 600,000 acres of Government land. There are lands which come under the head of unassigned lands, and also those which have not yet been investigated, that I should say were nearly 150,000 acres more.

Q. What do you mean by unassigned?

A. At the time the land system was established a list of lands was made out. Certain lands were to be given to chiefs; others were reserved by the King, and the remainder were to form what has since been called Government lands. Certain lands were overlooked, and have since come under the head of unassigned lands. The larger portion of the crown lands are now under lease for long terms of years.

Q. What is the limit?

A. Thirty years, allowed by law. A number of these leases have lately been made, which of course throws them out of any calculation for development by small settlers for sometime to come.

Q. To whom are they leased?

A. Corporations.

Q. And for what purpose?

A. Grazing purposes and cane cultivation. That land is only suitable for that purpose and also for the needs of planters.

Q. What do you mean by the needs of planters?

A. They felt that they required land for the purpose of planting cane, and they offered so much a year, and generally they got it—sometimes far below the actual value. I know of several instances where leases have been executed for crown lands far below their actual value.

Q. To corporations?

A. Yes. Of course a large quantity part of this crown land is absolutely worthless. A reference to the map will show that most of these crown lands converge towards the backbone of the island. Then there [Page 872] is a large amount of lava and other volcanic country unfit for anything, but enough remains to be applicable to purposes of farming, especially small farms. In the higher altitudes crops can be raised which are grown in temperate zones, and nearer the level of the sea tropical products. I should say that of these 625,000 acres 50 per cent can be made available, after the leases which now tie them have expired. I think the value of the crown lands has been very much overrated.

Q. You speak of the natives owning Kuleanas, and then of their having gotten lands sold by the Government.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. The latter class; are they in small parcels or not?

A. The largest amounts of land sold to the native Hawaiian by the Hawaiian Government are seldom over 100 acres in extent. There are some which are of larger area, and when so have generally been purchased by a number of individuals pooling together.

Q. Well, now, the pooling of these lands; who owns them?

A. To-day?

Q. Yes.

A. Individuals.

Q. For sugar culture?

A. Yes, and for grazing. I should say that by far the larger part is now in the hands of foreigners.

Q. Did the natives sell it?

A. They sold it and they raised money on it by mortgage, and in some instances lost it by foreclosure.

Q. Have they conveyed away in that way the larger proportion of their holdings?

A. I should say that not over 10 per cent of the land originally conveyed to the Hawaiians or purchased by them from the Government has remained in their hands to-day.

Q. The lands sold then are generally in the hands of these corporations?

A. Yes, sir. I should state, in this connection, that the larger portion of the lands sold by the Government is situated in the districts of Kohala, Hamaqua, and Hilo, the three districts on the island of Hawaii which now produce over one-half of the crop of the Hawaiian Islands, over 60,000 tons. The districts of Kona and Kau in the olden times were mostly settled by Hawaiians. The fishing was good, and they preferred to live there in preference to living on the windward side of the Island. As the plantations throughout the group expanded and their needs for land increased, it gradually assumed control of these little sections.

Q. By purchase?

A. The process would be this: The Hawaiian would get hard up. He wanted to raise money on his property, and of course the plantation was always ready to advance that money; or if he went to other parties it would sooner or later be transferred to the plantation. The man who had made him advances would want his interest or principal, and in the natural course of events it always came over to the corporation, and this is how they managed to obtain the whole or larger part of the land.

Q. Now, the lands on the leeward; who are they owned by now mostly?

A. The ownership is about even between the descendants of the original awardees and the others who have obtained control in the manner I have just stated.

[Page 873]

Q. What are they used for?

A. For grazing lands and sites tor dwellings. The leeward side is largely volcanic—very rough and rocky—and the lower contours are unfit for anything but grazing. The higher contours are generally on larger awards, which are now owned by others. This condition holds good with the other islands as on Hawaii, only more emphatically so.

Q. You mean to say that these changes of title are more emphatic than on Hawaii?

A. Yes; Hawaii is only a sugar-producing island of comparatively recent date, while Maui and Kauai were the initial points of the sugar industry.

Q. How about this island?

A. Sugar on this island is of comparatively recent date. The total amount of land owned by Hawaiians on these islands does not exceed 7,000 acres. I am giving approximate figures.

Q. How much is owned by other parties?

A. The remainder. I think the area of this island is about 340,000 or 350,000 acres.

Q. And the remainder, after taking out the amount owned by natives?

A. About 65,000 acres is owned by the Crown; a small tract is owned by the Government and the Bishop estate, and private parties, mostly foreigners, come in for the remainder. Of the 7,000 acres I have given 1,200 acres or thereabouts is now under cultivation by the Chinese in rice and taro patches.

Q. Did they get that from the natives?

A. Yes. The remaining 6,000 is what is called Kula land, or plateau land. It is all heavily mortgaged.

Q. About what rate of interest is charged?

A. The legal rate is 9 per cent.

Q. Suppose more than that is charged?

A. If it is with the consent of the mortgagor, he is held.

(Mr. Loebenstein here presented a map of the island of Maui.)

Q. Will you please tell me what opportunity you have had for getting this information you have been giving this morning?

A. I have been a surveyor for a number of years and I am constantly traveling over all the islands of the group. I have taken great interest in the land system here and given it a careful study. I know the Hawaiian language thoroughly—I speak it, read it, and write it.

Q. How long have you been in the islands?

A. Off and on, fifteen years. I was born at Macon, Ga.

Q. You have not been south since you haye beenway?

A. No.

Q. Your surveying has been done at the instance of private parties or the Government?

A. Both. The Government has frequently retained me for work when their own corps was insufficient to carry on the work, but I am not a salaried Government official.

Q. You have perhaps found it more profitable to have private employment?

A. Oh, by far.

Q. When employed by the Government you get the same rate of pay?

A. I charge the same rate as I do to private parties. I would say this—that I also hold an appointment as Government land agent for the island of Hawaii, and my duties are to maintain an oversight and [Page 874] supervision of Government lands. I have always endeavored to look out for the interest of the people as against the grasp and greed of other parties—that is in respect to fair figures for rentals, and setting apart such lauds as I think should be set apart for homestead settlers, so as to give the experiment of small farming in the country a fair trial. Of the lands set apart for homestead purposes on the island of Hawaii there are about 7,000 acres in all, which have been laid out in tracts not exceeding 20 acres.

Q; Now, going from the land question, do you know anything about the causes which led to the dethronement of the Queen and the establishment of the Provisional Government?

A. I believe I have kept myself posted on the events of the day. I believe I understand to some extent how the crisis was brought about.

Q. Please give me your views.

A. Since the forcing of the new constitution upon Kaulakaua there has been a constant endeavor on the part of the Sovereign to undermine those constitutional checks which were set against the royal prerogative. That of course led to constant collision.

Q. You mean force?

A. No; constitutional collision. In many instances the constitutional side of the question, as I understand it, was sex; aside. That is to say, by opinions and decisions from the highest court in the land—the supreme court. The sovereign was generally sustained. All these different results and different tendencies finally combined in making the issue very plain and broad. Then again the Hawaiian looks upon the Government and upon official position as a legitimate source from which to fill his pocket. In other words, he is naturally corrupt. The younger generation have only the one ambition—to become Government employés. For this reason the sovereign has generally been able to depend on that element in its encroachments on constitutional liberty. These different streams all converged into that revolution of a few months ago, which set aside the Queen. I know, of course, that at times there must have been a private understanding and differences of opinion which were adjusted in order to maintain a peaceful condition of affairs.

Q. Who were these private understandings between?

A. In this statement I am giving my own individual opinion. I have nothing authoritative, but events have occurred at times which any lover of constitutional liberty, or anything which meant the independence of white men, would grit his teeth over and still find things would remain the same.

Q. Did these differences run along the race line generally?

A. I could answer that in this way—that what differences there have been have generally resulted in the race line being sharply drawn, and the Hawaiian would of course use his vote in strengthening his side of the case. There has been no working in harmony between the two races for the last ten years.

Q. The difference then practically has been between the whites and the Crown and the natives on such questions as you have already indicated? Is that true?

A. It is undoubtedly so.

Q. Did there seem to be a general sentiment amongst the whites for annexation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When did that get to be pronounced?

A. You mean as a public enunciation?

[Page 875]

Q. You can state it both ways.

A. It became a public enunciation January 16, and before that time there had been several. I know of one instance where the same movement was in force to bring about annexation.

Q. What time was that?

A. Between the months of March and October of 1892.

Q. Was that the Ashford-Wilcox movement?

A. Yes; I was requested to join the movement. It was a secret conspiracy at that time.

Q. The object being to dethrone the Queen?

A. To overthrow the throne and have annexation. I won’t say to what republic. It was the initial step to evolve a system of annexation.

Q. Why did it fail?

A. In the first place the officials nabbed the head conspirators before the thing was ready. My personal conviction is that the time was not ripe; that capital, which is proverbially timid and slow to accept a new order of things, was unwilling to embark in the scheme.

Q. Did the leaders of that movement have anything to do with the failure of the capitalists to join?

A. Yes, sir; I believe it was the want of responsible men—who were known as men of financial standing in the community—that was the cause of the failure. Some of the leaders who were then annunciating annexation are now violently opposed to it.

Q. And were they on the 16th of January?

A. I know of two who in public utterances opposed the movement.

Q. What is your judgment as to the disposition on the part of the people toward the Provisional Government?

A. Hawaiians, you mean?

Q. You can take the several classes in such order as you want.

A. I believe the feeling among the whites generally is in support of the Provisional Government. There are exceptions, but I think I have a right to say they do not represent the respectable element in the community.

Q. How are they in point of numbers? What percentage of the white population?

A. I know there are very few.

Q. There is an English element here. How is it disposed towards the present Government?

A. Equally divided as to annexation and non annexation.

Q. Is it true or not that they and the whites generally are looking at the matter from a business standpoint?

A. In my conversations with a number of leading sugar-planters, and managers who represent owners, they have advanced several reasons like this: We are fully aware that the bounty is a thing that can be knocked in the head. We do not care. We want better government. And as for the contract labor, we can get along without it. We have enough Japanese in the country now. Some of them look at the thing from a financial point of view, and might be unwilling to express these views.

Q. What do they desire and expect if they entered into union with the United States?

A. Stable government.

Q. What do you mean by stable government?

A. A government which is not under the pleasure of a sovereign whose mere will or wish or pleasure will overthrow constitutional rights.

[Page 876]

Q. The larger part of the population here is not white?

A. No, sir; they are not—whites only a small minority.

Q. Well, then, if the Portuguese and the Japanese and the Kanakas were allowed suffrage, would they not overthrow the political power of what is called the best people here?

A. The Hawaiians alone would do it without the aid of the other elements.

Q. With that in view, what is the expectation of the better class as to the question of suffrage in connection with their desire for annexation?

A. The original intention was—which is a matter of history—to apply for union with the United States and to be accepted by them under a territorial form of government.

Q. And so avoid the suffrage question?

A. Yes.

Q. Looking to the fact that, as you have said, the native population would overwhelm the better elements in any political contest if manhood suffrage was adopted, what condition, what relation could they hope to have with the Government of the United States to protect them from that situation?

A. A territorial form of government, formed on lines parallel to the government of the District of Columbia. That was the original idea and expectation when the Queen was dethroned.

Q. After the Provisional Government was established?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You say that was the original idea?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is the idea now—any change of feeling or belief or hope?

A. I do not think so. I think the feeling remains the same; but, in view of the opposition which this has brought forth, the matter has now evolved into a desire to give them civil rights.

Q. Who?

A. The Hawaiians.

Q. To what extent?

A. Votes.

Q. Without qualification?

A. That has not been entered into, so far as I know.

Q. Do you think, in view of what you have said about the Government being overwhelmed by a popular vote, would you suppose they would be satisfied to go into the Union, giving unqualified suffrage to the native population?

A. I do not think they look that far ahead. I believe that the suffrage given to the Hawaiians would make them a football and an object which different political parties would try their best to get hold of. At the same time the Hawaiian has no love for the present dynasty of sovereigns.

Q. And if the question of annexation was submitted now?

A. It would be overwhelmingly defeated.

Q. By whom?

A. By the Hawaiians.

Q. Have you thought over that, and are you giving me your deliberate opinion?

A. I have studied the matter carefully.

Q. Then I will ask you why it is that so many of the native population are signing petitions in favor of annexation?

A. It illustrates the natural instability and unreliability of the [Page 877] Hawaiian character. He signs petitions in favor of one thing to-day and repudiates it by signing a different one to-morrow.

Q. Then how could you feel assured that if submitted to a ballot he would vote against annexation?

A. He is in the hands of political leaders of his own race.

Q. And their leaders are against it?

A. Their leaders are at present against it. Personally, he is indifferent.

Q. The revolution of 1887, from which came the constitution of that year, was that accomplished by the people about Honolulu and on this Island?

A. The practical part of it was accomplished by the people of this town. There were divisions and auxiliary branches sworn to bring about the same results on the other islands.

Q. Made up of what race of people?

A. Whites, entirely.

Q. They did not participate in the actual movement in Honolulu at the time of the overthrow of the Queen?

A. No; it was purely and simply a movement by the people of Honolulu.

Q. Was there any participation on the part of anybody on any other island than this?

A. Only a moral support.

Q. I mean any physical force which was resorted to?

A. No; but a number of them were prepared to exert it if necessary to do so, I was one of them.

Q. You say there had been an organization in existence for some time for that purpose among the whites?

A. For annexation?

Q. No; I am speaking of the movement of 1887.

A. Yes, sir; it was conceived some time in January, 1887, and culminated in June, if my recollection is correct.

Q. The object of it was to wrest from the King the authority to appoint nobles?

A. Well, the object was to bring about a cleaner condition of affairs and to check his tendency to absolutism.

Q. Where did they get their arms from?

A. From San Francisco, and they were supplied by varions mercantile firms in this town. I would say that there were in existence several militia companies who had arms and ammunition for sometime.

Q. In the movement of the 14th of January had there been any preparation in the way of the white people possessing themselves of arms?

A. I can only speak from hearsay and reading the papers.

Q. What did you believe?

A. That there was no preconcerted action whatever.

Q. They went to the armory, it appears from some proceedings furnished at Washington, and got arms. Do you know anything about those arms?

A. They were taken there after the mass meeting had been held in town protesting against the action of the Queen.

Q. From what source taken there?

A. From several mercantile houses here.

Q. What kind of arms?

A. Rifles—Winchester and Springfield, and whatever guns were there. Private citizens who had arms in their possession responded [Page 878] and delivered them over to the committee of safety. When we heard of this on the other islands we put our guns in order. I had several.

Q. Is it the practice on the other islands to do as you did to have arms?

A. No, it is not; but very few had been as prominently identified as myself in matters of this kind. I had several rifles given to me at the close of hostilities in 1889. There was fear that an outbreak might occur on one of the other islands and naturally these arms and a lot of ammunition were given to me.

Q. And were they distributed about town in the same way?

A. I do not believe they were. It was for fear hostilities might arise and it was deemed best to distribute them there. A number there are of men who frequently go hunting and as a rule have a rifle or two in the house. But the Hawaiian is not naturally bloodthirsty. He is too indolent, and any crisis or issue which would have to be fought out by force of arms with native Hawaiians pitted against white men would be merely the result of demagogue teachings.

Q. Is it not generally accepted here that the superiority of the white race always suppresses the inferior races?

A. Yes; that is the feeling among white people.

Q. Is not that true?

A. Yes; emphatically true.

Q. Whenever you get to an emergency and the people are thoroughly aroused there is a feeling on the part of the white people that they can exert their will?

A. Certainly; and the average Hawaiian does not care.

Q. He is not disposed to fight?

A. No; it is not in him, but the leaders and half-castes—they are the dangerous element in the community.

Q. Well, but in a contest with the whites have they ever been able to successfully rally this native force?

A. No. I speak from experience, gathered in 1889, where a comparatively small body of whites were able to cope with an immeasurably superior force of natives. The average Hawaiian really does not care in this contest for annexation, but in any case at issue between his color and white men he will side with his own race. Get the leaders out of the way and the Hawaiians would very soon be reconciled. A few leaders keep alive the race issue.

Q. Is it not easy in a legal way to get rid of these leaders?

A. They can be influenced by financial considerations.

Q. Then, in order to control popular elections here, it would be necessary to resort to the use of money with the leaders?

A. I know it would be necessary or else give them places. The younger men are the ones on whom these demagogues depend. The younger ones really have a hatred of white men.

Mr. Blount. Thank you. I will not detain you longer.

My father arrived in United States in 1818 from Germany. He was more or less mixed up with political matters there. He was traveling in Macon at the time I was born. I was brought up in New York City—graduate of Cooper Union—as a civil engineer and mechanical engineer. I was born in Macon in 1857, when my father, who was a musical artist, was traveling.

I have carefully gone through the foregoing interview between Col. J. H. Blount and myself and pronounce it to be an absolutely accurate report.

Albert B. Loebenstein.