scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu · .... ...: ... ol / 2;i / 05 'fur.: 15:35 fax 808nq418b8 ofr....

.... ...: ...

Ol / 2;i / 05 'fur.: 15:35 FAX 808nQ418B 8 OFr. OF RAII'AlIAN ,~FPATRS ~OOl

PH£NE NO. Jan. 25 2005 01:08PM P2

M·j6Si8

:!'crr.:

Subject:

United States Department of the Interior

omci:. OF nu: SOLICITOR Walhlngton. D.C. 2'J'2~O

CC~4s~!or to t~e Secreta~/ a~d Secre~ary'8 De9ig~a,ed Of=~ca~, ~a~ai~an EO~~B Comm!saicn Ac~

Sc.l.!.cito~

,he S~o~e c! '2deral Responsibility tor Nacive na~aiians o~~c~ ~~e Ha~aiian H~ues Comrnis;io~ Ace

:o!..lc"'{i:':S ye''':::- ':fI~:':"=o::,y ba:cra ~::.~ .5E!~a~e C~t~~~it:.;ee c:t :;;:;.e=S-t aJ!c Sa.;:'.;,:,a~ R!lSr.!:';==S3 or: ?2b;:--...;a~1 6, :'99~, !:1 il:l ove:'sigh: hcar:':lg' ::0::'=9:;;:;'::" :~.8 na'''1\~:!:: "o;::e~ Cot:\.1\iss;'o:: ."I=t, 1920, 42 Stilt. 1~5, .:\,1; .i...7.ar.de::! ~:\:~~;, forr..e!"':'y ccdif!'eci ae -'w8 U.S .C . B 691, "Jou requested our ooiroio:: 0:: thE! sc:coe of :ederal resoo"e~::'ili ties uncer ~~.ae ':u::. .• ' iI.:. ':I-.e ti;:"e t~.e !i;;C"'-Wl'.9 ,u:o.c:e<! c", July 9, 'l921, ?'aw .. iJ. "'oS a:: .:"::cc=?c:,.!~ed. ~er!:'!::o;-y of t;he Ur.!.~ed S~at:QSiI. Kawai! becCi.IT\w t~.e fii'=:.c~:"l g~",!:.e c! t.he ;]r.icn on f,u!'!'usc 21, 1959, in accordance ,,~~r. t:~c :!awaii S~a.t;ehocd Act rscacehooc! A<:t;1 o'f Ap:-il 21, 1959, 73 Star.. 4, ~ 'a U.S.c. Ch. 3. Sect~on '\ ot the se~:ehood Act t;ran .. !Rrrad the "'awaiia:. lio~es pro,?ram !:-om the Terricory to ehe St ... te ot Ha..,ai t .

'rne fU-rC;' and tr.e Statenood Ac:e r.!lemsalvQs are ene Ci="se .5IOUrC:QS ~o:- ur.der~r.andin .. ' the rcspor.s1bi11r.les ehey,craate. Accordi~gly, in e .. 9we:-!.r:g your queseion we have exam1ned botr. tr.ese ~r.atutQ" with

,I' The De~are::.e:lt: has aaau .... ed ehe role of '!ead Federal ", .. er.cyu with respect to tile Hawaiian F.OIlleS pro;ratll in a~c:ordance wi!:~ the rOCcirn:ne:l<!aeicns of a. 198.3 Fgderal-i3ellt:e raslc .So>:'c" en t!l" !IF.CJ\.. Under l?a.r~ 514., :sect-ion. :;':3 ot t:.he ~epq.rt.:r.eI1t. ot: t._he !:nt:.ericr ManuZL1, (514 DM 1.3), the Sec:t'Bcary ,ot the Inl:erior is iequ£rod to Appoint' an of~!.cer 0':' emp:'oyee e: ehB Depo.rt;l1I"nt "" , tl:.e , !'Sac::etll.ry'" DeaignaceQ Ot:icer fOr t:r_B Hal'Aiian Horn"" Ccrnm1saion Ace. ~ . ·Tl!e ' Des:'!fTID.U:d Officer i~ co .. ":;V,, I!.'" 'the point ' of , cqllitact \lit~in the C"E'c.rtment of c!le Interior with respect to, Il\ILttcr~·, c:oncBrm.ng the ~~l'aiian Hc~eB ~~o5::~ that arc the reapo~sibili~y of the United St.a.;;ee.' 0:1 Ap,,~l 1?, t989, the Sec:::el:.ary ap5Iointl!,t1;t.Cl .tha.r. pusition ~he Cou~selor to the ~ecracary. I

:1 ' . ~ ' .

Iii

.... ...: ...

Ol / 2;i / 05 'fur.: 15:35 FAX 808nQ418B 8 OFr. OF RAII'AlIAN ,~FPATRS ~OOl

PH£NE NO. Jan. 25 2005 01:08PM P2

M·j6Si8

:!'crr.:

Subject:


omci:. OF nu: SOLICITOR Walhlngton. D.C. 2'J'2~O

CC~4s~!or to t~e Secreta~/ a~d Secre~ary'8 De9ig~a,ed Of=~ca~, ~a~ai~an EO~~B Comm!saicn Ac~

Sc.l.!.cito~

,he S~o~e c! '2deral Responsibility tor Nacive na~aiians o~~c~ ~~e Ha~aiian H~ues Comrnis;io~ Ace

:o!..lc"'{i:':S ye''':::- ':fI~:':"=o::,y ba:cra ~::.~ .5E!~a~e C~t~~~it:.;ee c:t :;;:;.e=S-t aJ!c Sa.;:'.;,:,a~ R!lSr.!:';==S3 or: ?2b;:--...;a~1 6, :'99~, !:1 il:l ove:'sigh: hcar:':lg' ::0::'=9:;;:;'::" :~.8 na'''1\~:!:: "o;::e~ Cot:\.1\iss;'o:: ."I=t, 1920, 42 Stilt. 1~5, .:\,1; .i...7.ar.de::! ~:\:~~;, forr..e!"':'y ccdif!'eci ae -'w8 U.S .C . B 691, "Jou requested our ooiroio:: 0:: thE! sc:coe of :ederal resoo"e~::'ili ties uncer ~~.ae ':u::. .• ' iI.:. ':I-.e ti;:"e t~.e !i;;C"'-Wl'.9 ,u:o.c:e<! c", July 9, 'l921, ?'aw .. iJ. "'oS a:: .:"::cc=?c:,.!~ed. ~er!:'!::o;-y of t;he Ur.!.~ed S~at:QSiI. Kawai! becCi.IT\w t~.e fii'=:.c~:"l g~",!:.e c! t.he ;]r.icn on f,u!'!'usc 21, 1959, in accordance ,,~~r. t:~c :!awaii S~a.t;ehocd Act rscacehooc! A<:t;1 o'f Ap:-il 21, 1959, 73 Star.. 4, ~ 'a U.S.c. Ch. 3. Sect~on '\ ot the se~:ehood Act t;ran .. !Rrrad the "'awaiia:. lio~es pro,?ram !:-om the Terricory to ehe St ... te ot Ha..,ai t .

'rne fU-rC;' and tr.e Statenood Ac:e r.!lemsalvQs are ene Ci="se .5IOUrC:QS ~o:- ur.der~r.andin .. ' the rcspor.s1bi11r.les ehey,craate. Accordi~gly, in e .. 9we:-!.r:g your queseion we have exam1ned botr. tr.ese ~r.atutQ" with

,I' The De~are::.e:lt: has aaau .... ed ehe role of '!ead Federal ", .. er.cyu with respect to tile Hawaiian F.OIlleS pro;ratll in a~c:ordance wi!:~ the rOCcirn:ne:l<!aeicns of a. 198.3 Fgderal-i3ellt:e raslc .So>:'c" en t!l" !IF.CJ\.. Under l?a.r~ 514., :sect-ion. :;':3 ot t:.he ~epq.rt.:r.eI1t. ot: t._he !:nt:.ericr ManuZL1, (514 DM 1.3), the Sec:t'Bcary ,ot the Inl:erior is iequ£rod to Appoint' an of~!.cer 0':' emp:'oyee e: ehB Depo.rt;l1I"nt "" , tl:.e , !'Sac::etll.ry'" DeaignaceQ Ot:icer fOr t:r_B Hal'Aiian Horn"" Ccrnm1saion Ace. ~ . ·Tl!e ' Des:'!fTID.U:d Officer i~ co .. ":;V,, I!.'" 'the point ' of , cqllitact \lit~in the C"E'c.rtment of c!le Interior with respect to, Il\ILttcr~·, c:oncBrm.ng the ~~l'aiian Hc~eB ~~o5::~ that arc the reapo~sibili~y of the United St.a.;;ee.' 0:1 Ap,,~l 1?, t989, the Sec:::el:.ary ap5Iointl!,t1;t.Cl .tha.r. pusition ~he Cou~selor to the ~ecracary. I

:1 ' . ~ ' .

Iii University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection

01/25/05 TTffi 15:35 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWATIAN AFFATRS I4l 002

----;;..-..-----------------,..--_ ...... _--------, . L ______ ~ ____________ __

PIfJNE NO. :

care. '~e sUCih".a.ri::G :he1= PQ~c~nent 'p::ovlaions and \Ie acivl!:'t co t:l:ei~ .;" .. legialaclva hiator!BS. . .. . . Xe \:se t:.a ::; &ul ca of au:: statutory analysis to con8!.der whether :ha Uni:ed St~ecu: has assumed. eh.e t'a9pa~sibil:"t:'B! of a CDlNRCD law truste'e foZ' o:ha ila.wai!.Q,n Homes prog't"am. Our D.DAlysis focuses on ehQ Cilse law d.;·/Gloplng the nature of tha %'espo~aihilit1es of the t1ni~Qd Staces CQwa:-4s the Inc!iQl!. ... t r1!3e9 vhich hae been p~::'t ~ay8Q as an~lcgoue to the relationsni~ be=vaan the United Sta:ea and ~he na~1ve Hawaiiar.a,V i=om our re~earch. we cODcluGe that che Uni=ad' Seat.es dOlls J:ce have a t~.lllt resooll.s!b!li·ty. ~.: a cancluo1on applios to ~ha periods both boecre ~nd at~e~ Rawaii's Statenood. .

A £ew d::l.scU4';'Or.S o~ ~he scope of radezoal reepofts1h1:.icy have ter..d.ecl co r~sh cowa:¢s th~ Indi4n ana~ogy and tb g1ve shore shrift ~o ~be SCACUI:8& l;h8J;lGelvvQ.N io:: exa.mp.l.e, a· ~.amer DEPUt.y So11c:i.:~X' af thia t:eparc:lGnt. Ywz'. 7J:ede~!c!< FS%g'.1son,·ccncludec in an Augusr; 27, :'9i9, 19:.e.e: to the D!7;ictor, R.egier-a.:' Otfice, Un:!.t:.ed Sta~es C~~~~Es~on on C1v~1 ~ighte, t~A: ~~de~ t~m ~~~ the eDited StaC8$ vas a t~~s~ee betwae~ :920 ar.d'~959 L~Q :~~~ i: ~etained this rolQ a!te: S~acehcc~. .

o~ e~/ery Qcc:a.siC!l oche~ t~a.n. t:t:.e August 27 I !.9 7~ lee~eJ:, the vepa:tme~c ha~ :ake~ e~Q ~os1tion th&~ th& Un1te~ States 11 no~ a

1· 7b:'i ~sa.9'e (n::~t:'..,e ~a'ooIa!.:'ar:9·" t pa!:,£!:p.la ct:.a~ o~ t::e ~1iCA, t~e Hawn!.:. s:~ :e~cOd. Ac: .a::d. t~e ~!:"l:r.. C:.=-c:~:..~ C"'l!!Ies c!.~ed !.~ ~~:s

.. op:'::~C:l.

l' !: Janua.ry 1.992 the StA:e of HAwaii 'prepared a. llU19thy ~~eport O~ t~e Hawaiia.n Hc=\o L.u!da· \7rcSlralil" in raaporise too a. ~ovembGlr 12, 19.9:'. lecter fram the Seriate Ccmmiteee o~ Zne~gy a~d Natural aasources. The lepcre argue, that 'the United Stac81 bAg a ~ruse responsibility for ~he Hawaiian Kame Lands aDd c~Ltic~~88 t~e Cni~ed States for allesed deflclenciea in =aating chis clai~ed reIPo~s~i11ty. ~~e ,Senat.e Aapa~ of! ~he Com1t.tQG o=. xnd1an Affairs eeL Pub. L. No. 100 ~ 579, ~02 Stat. 2916. tho Nae£ve r.awaiLaD Health ·Ca:a Ae~ of L988. includes a legal opiDi.on., ·A:1~lys1s of tha Legal 1l.elilcicmebip be~een

• the Fed.e:al Oove2:M\ene. cu14 t.'1e lJa.tive He.W41iU\&1f ",hic.~ cODcJ.ucllUI c.hat II [t)he fede=-a.l savermnent ha.s A twat relae10D.h1p. to ~at1'Ye HB.'Werli~nzs," s. :lep. Na. 580,. 10ot:h cong., 24 SIiSla. 26 (l,ga" r .... cpr1nt ed 1: loseS t1.S.C.C.A.B. '3864, 38S, (1988). ·'J:hG:l:Q a%8 .in aacl!.t:LcD two opir.:l.ofts fram the Congnsai.o4al llcllacua=-c:h Service. t.u,~&='Y of c;:onvrlt8B which cu1dns&J variauSJ I:qmpgZl~J1t:B of ~he I'ederalnar.~v~ p.Awa~iU!. l.e.gal rela~~Q~hip: ~ Rov-=uJ: •• 198.3., Hemo~&Dduza, ·Definiti.on of Wac..1Y11 Ha.wa:..i.ans, a azacl a Jul.y 13, UIU •• MecnQZ'.~u..'Tl ·QU.oec1.:onB R.el,,=4.n.9' \:a Lag:!:sl",tion ·1le!at'cU.ng Nat:.i.ve ·.JlawaJ.ian.s and N~c1VI. Alaak~~8.- . •

J • I

I ~ , f f

::::UD;; ;e:cu !.cat.te w::''Ct !-oi=. M. Cilc!a ~il.wai. o;a.ce S·.l:,c:: t~St cited d!sc~ Mr. , t;;e \f Coui;t in t!: C&pa..

De!,:ue. expre =asoc t~e:e

~ Dep to an cOllel 0:1 !!.~

~a.t.!v in BU th~ee co na. !9g~. J.eecu io Cl Resou ...-el:!. A: fa!

.}; Se

l' By !l1o&l. direc oe tl :-epc: demC~L ":!':.e C a::.d r bat;we :!ar t

01/25/05 TTffi 15:35 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWATIAN AFFATRS I4l 002

----;;..-..-----------------,..--_ ...... _--------, . L ______ ~ ____________ __

PIfJNE NO. :

care. '~e sUCih".a.ri::G :he1= PQ~c~nent 'p::ovlaions and \Ie acivl!:'t co t:l:ei~ .;" .. legialaclva hiator!BS. . .. . . Xe \:se t:.a ::; &ul ca of au:: statutory analysis to con8!.der whether :ha Uni:ed St~ecu: has assumed. eh.e t'a9pa~sibil:"t:'B! of a CDlNRCD law truste'e foZ' o:ha ila.wai!.Q,n Homes prog't"am. Our D.DAlysis focuses on ehQ Cilse law d.;·/Gloplng the nature of tha %'espo~aihilit1es of the t1ni~Qd Staces CQwa:-4s the Inc!iQl!. ... t r1!3e9 vhich hae been p~::'t ~ay8Q as an~lcgoue to the relationsni~ be=vaan the United Sta:ea and ~he na~1ve Hawaiiar.a,V i=om our re~earch. we cODcluGe that che Uni=ad' Seat.es dOlls J:ce have a t~.lllt resooll.s!b!li·ty. ~.: a cancluo1on applios to ~ha periods both boecre ~nd at~e~ Rawaii's Statenood. .

A £ew d::l.scU4';'Or.S o~ ~he scope of radezoal reepofts1h1:.icy have ter..d.ecl co r~sh cowa:¢s th~ Indi4n ana~ogy and tb g1ve shore shrift ~o ~be SCACUI:8& l;h8J;lGelvvQ.N io:: exa.mp.l.e, a· ~.amer DEPUt.y So11c:i.:~X' af thia t:eparc:lGnt. Ywz'. 7J:ede~!c!< FS%g'.1son,·ccncludec in an Augusr; 27, :'9i9, 19:.e.e: to the D!7;ictor, R.egier-a.:' Otfice, Un:!.t:.ed Sta~es C~~~~Es~on on C1v~1 ~ighte, t~A: ~~de~ t~m ~~~ the eDited StaC8$ vas a t~~s~ee betwae~ :920 ar.d'~959 L~Q :~~~ i: ~etained this rolQ a!te: S~acehcc~. .

o~ e~/ery Qcc:a.siC!l oche~ t~a.n. t:t:.e August 27 I !.9 7~ lee~eJ:, the vepa:tme~c ha~ :ake~ e~Q ~os1tion th&~ th& Un1te~ States 11 no~ a

1· 7b:'i ~sa.9'e (n::~t:'..,e ~a'ooIa!.:'ar:9·" t pa!:,£!:p.la ct:.a~ o~ t::e ~1iCA, t~e Hawn!.:. s:~ :e~cOd. Ac: .a::d. t~e ~!:"l:r.. C:.=-c:~:..~ C"'l!!Ies c!.~ed !.~ ~~:s

.. op:'::~C:l.

l' !: Janua.ry 1.992 the StA:e of HAwaii 'prepared a. llU19thy ~~eport O~ t~e Hawaiia.n Hc=\o L.u!da· \7rcSlralil" in raaporise too a. ~ovembGlr 12, 19.9:'. lecter fram the Seriate Ccmmiteee o~ Zne~gy a~d Natural aasources. The lepcre argue, that 'the United Stac81 bAg a ~ruse responsibility for ~he Hawaiian Kame Lands aDd c~Ltic~~88 t~e Cni~ed States for allesed deflclenciea in =aating chis clai~ed reIPo~s~i11ty. ~~e ,Senat.e Aapa~ of! ~he Com1t.tQG o=. xnd1an Affairs eeL Pub. L. No. 100 ~ 579, ~02 Stat. 2916. tho Nae£ve r.awaiLaD Health ·Ca:a Ae~ of L988. includes a legal opiDi.on., ·A:1~lys1s of tha Legal 1l.elilcicmebip be~een

• the Fed.e:al Oove2:M\ene. cu14 t.'1e lJa.tive He.W41iU\&1f ",hic.~ cODcJ.ucllUI c.hat II [t)he fede=-a.l savermnent ha.s A twat relae10D.h1p. to ~at1'Ye HB.'Werli~nzs," s. :lep. Na. 580,. 10ot:h cong., 24 SIiSla. 26 (l,ga" r .... cpr1nt ed 1: loseS t1.S.C.C.A.B. '3864, 38S, (1988). ·'J:hG:l:Q a%8 .in aacl!.t:LcD two opir.:l.ofts fram the Congnsai.o4al llcllacua=-c:h Service. t.u,~&='Y of c;:onvrlt8B which cu1dns&J variauSJ I:qmpgZl~J1t:B of ~he I'ederalnar.~v~ p.Awa~iU!. l.e.gal rela~~Q~hip: ~ Rov-=uJ: •• 198.3., Hemo~&Dduza, ·Definiti.on of Wac..1Y11 Ha.wa:..i.ans, a azacl a Jul.y 13, UIU •• MecnQZ'.~u..'Tl ·QU.oec1.:onB R.el,,=4.n.9' \:a Lag:!:sl",tion ·1le!at'cU.ng Nat:.i.ve ·.JlawaJ.ian.s and N~c1VI. Alaak~~8.- . •

J • I

I ~ , f f

::::UD;; ;e:cu !.cat.te w::''Ct !-oi=. M. Cilc!a ~il.wai. o;a.ce S·.l:,c:: t~St cited d!sc~ Mr. , t;;e \f Coui;t in t!: C&pa..

De!,:ue. expre =asoc t~e:e

~ Dep to an cOllel 0:1 !!.~

~a.t.!v in BU th~ee co na. !9g~. J.eecu io Cl Resou ...-el:!. A: fa!

.}; Se

l' By !l1o&l. direc oe tl :-epc: demC~L ":!':.e C a::.d r bat;we :!ar t

University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection

01/25/05 TIJR Hi: 36 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWAITAN AFFAIRS 11003

PHONE NO. Jan. 25 212105 01: 09PM P4

s ...... "--. e· ~': ~ .. , s .. ., "

Itt ,e f· . .. ~. I . \':_

ft .. ;..,. s a

~~~a~ee fo: t~Q Ha~~!}a~ Kc:es p~o~~~~.y Cepu~y sol~C~to~ .:ergu9cc'a cpi:l.!.Q:a~as =e~e=cec! i:; t.he oepa.:t.mcat"s OCtQlJer 17 1~B9 ~e;te:, to c~e Cha.1r;-..a..~, ~eQat.e Selec:~ Co:r.mit:,c9 on IndiL"l Ae'fa:.rs: w:= .. :cen ,with ~~e expreDB concurr~nc:c ot ,:he t:hea Solicitor, ~:,.~~~re~n L. ~llda? The Oc:obG~ 17, 1989, le~t~r ~e11ed on the ~ec_~~on c! the N.1.nth Circuit in xeA\Jlsllb';' .. ~,n."a'n"a C0jICJ\\1n1 ty Asa' D Y. :fa·lla.l:.a;;, !-!'itj\ji9 ~Cii!'_o;,:!.sBi5Cn. sas P.2d :'2~G (9th C1.:. 1978), whleh £ic.:;.tac:!.: at C tl he United S:.at::s has or.l y a.. sel'3swha: tangenc ial s~pe~/'SO~f ~cl~ ~nder the .~~SSiOd Ac:. =athe~ c~~n the rcle of C:t1stee" !d, 4t.·132-i :i.1 'i, .\lthough thar. Nint.h Circuit. c!eeision was c!.ecr1 ir.. MI:. :rerg\:sor.' fJ letter- of Augu.st 2.1, 19'79, he neither

I d~seussed.nor distinguished it, and as we advis~d·genaeor Inouy~, Mr. r~4"g'UQOC.' ~ les-al canciua iqn thaI:: tollowad ~~s 11 at wa:=nll wlch t~e vorda ol the co~rc's decision. We adopted the PQAiti~n of :he

9 ~ou:t af Appeals. Tna Depar~m&nt reaff1r.med che p08iticn adop:Gc

,

l.n. t!1e cct:.::~ar ~ 7, :'~69 lel;t;or i:1 a subaeque~e l.el:tar trcm :he DQpa:~~e~c co Senator Daniel x. Ino~ye (C~C9Q J~u~ry J3, 19&J.)

Oepuey Sol!c~~cr ?e:g~sor.'s co~clus!or. of A~guat J" 1979 is

I expressly ovtJ~rulacl. We c.c:1cluc1e that. the ur..:Lteci Sta=es ha.d no t.:"us't =-RJiPocsi~i.lit!es to ~he r.a.t1vs Slawa!.ians elt~e~ befo:oe Sta~ahccd cr

: ~ I the~eaf:a=.r

51 :I Doputy Selici~or ~e::'i·-.:.!on' s OC~Qbc:r 17. l,97? !,ctter did not. allude ~ to any prior Dapa~t=en~al praeeiccB or op~nlc=8 in support of his

,e S

I, 'I

.y Ir IE! ,-I, ~

tt re , .n J , .. It,

f con.elusic;:. Io the concrar/, the DspD.=tment has staced en the xecord. O~ n~~e=O~3 occa~s!ons th~t thers i~ no trust rsspocaibi11ty to Native' Hc!...,~ii~r.s. We a.~e UDa·llore at a.ny pric;:.; depa:cment:al opinion I in BU~PQrt Qf Deputy SolicicQr Ferguscn's lette~. ~ithi~ the last

J th:"&e ye.ars aloce the Depa~tI!er.t has dan!.ed any t~ust. rs·sponsibi::ic.y ! to native Hawaiians in letter~ c! Februa'~f 2, 19So·ar.d Octo~gr 15, f lSSC, c.o ehe Ot.ai:-::.a:L, Sana..:e CottLrnir.:ee o! ~nru:gy ~nd Natura.l : J.escu'tces. The Oapa:cne.w.ltal ::el'lrese1\taeivtaQ n:!.taz:aeed chiS posS"t1otl ! in testi:r.cny before the S.inatQ Cc:lM:\ic::as on !ne~' and N~tu%'a.l

ReSources on M~~cn 9, 1990, July 2!, ~991, and February 6, i9S2 as well as ~~ t;.c1Mcny bafo~e the Se~aea Select Commlceee on ~diBn ~fai=8 en Auguae &. 1989.

See leteer of OCtober 1" ~992 at 2,.

J:n . r

" By'ri;le II of i'\!.b. L. No. 96-56.5 of De<:&mber 22, 1'80. 94 Stal:. 13'34, Congress established the Nat-lva F.a.wai~ans St.udy Cctrmii'sian and direceed ic to Uconduct· a study ol ehe cultu~a. C88~S a~ ccncer.ns of the Na~iv8 Hawaiians.· T~he Commission prc~ueed·a ~~c.vcl~~ =epc:'t on J'lJ.::.a 23, :!.!1B3, wh:f.c~ lncluc1e.s a cOro'lpr.e.h.ap.1l1vB scudy ct !:.ha demc9"::::,a.;:bie~. his t.o:y and c·u=:-enc COfld!t!.on ot: ~ha nar.i.va ~a\lai!a.na •. -:1:e ~Dr:au9a :!;ca exa.mlned al: length ~ha i'edara.l"- Eawai.ian ;r:elat ion.hip an~ ~r~ ~aj~~ity CCDcl~~e4 t~4~ chere·was no ~sc rela~1ens~ip tlet.ween tns tl'c1t:ild St:.ates a't'ld tbe na.~:!.ve Halltaiians iUll1 no souI:24 :Qaa.1s !ot" t}',~ claim· t.hat. th$ Uni~ad. ~t:a.1:es o~l9d cOQpensat1on. for the taking

!lC1

. (conci~uQ4 ..• )

3

.,.

I.

I

l.

i ~

I , "

) II I.~I ~! r I

f II

t 1J I .... , .. i. ~.

i: \'

11 . ~:

,.' ;;i •

I .

~: ~ . \ "

01/25/05 TIJR Hi: 36 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWAITAN AFFAIRS 11003

PHONE NO. Jan. 25 212105 01: 09PM P4

s ...... "--. e· ~': ~ .. , s .. ., "

Itt ,e f· . .. ~. I . \':_

ft .. ;..,. s a

~~~a~ee fo: t~Q Ha~~!}a~ Kc:es p~o~~~~.y Cepu~y sol~C~to~ .:ergu9cc'a cpi:l.!.Q:a~as =e~e=cec! i:; t.he oepa.:t.mcat"s OCtQlJer 17 1~B9 ~e;te:, to c~e Cha.1r;-..a..~, ~eQat.e Selec:~ Co:r.mit:,c9 on IndiL"l Ae'fa:.rs: w:= .. :cen ,with ~~e expreDB concurr~nc:c ot ,:he t:hea Solicitor, ~:,.~~~re~n L. ~llda? The Oc:obG~ 17, 1989, le~t~r ~e11ed on the ~ec_~~on c! the N.1.nth Circuit in xeA\Jlsllb';' .. ~,n."a'n"a C0jICJ\\1n1 ty Asa' D Y. :fa·lla.l:.a;;, !-!'itj\ji9 ~Cii!'_o;,:!.sBi5Cn. sas P.2d :'2~G (9th C1.:. 1978), whleh £ic.:;.tac:!.: at C tl he United S:.at::s has or.l y a.. sel'3swha: tangenc ial s~pe~/'SO~f ~cl~ ~nder the .~~SSiOd Ac:. =athe~ c~~n the rcle of C:t1stee" !d, 4t.·132-i :i.1 'i, .\lthough thar. Nint.h Circuit. c!eeision was c!.ecr1 ir.. MI:. :rerg\:sor.' fJ letter- of Augu.st 2.1, 19'79, he neither

I d~seussed.nor distinguished it, and as we advis~d·genaeor Inouy~, Mr. r~4"g'UQOC.' ~ les-al canciua iqn thaI:: tollowad ~~s 11 at wa:=nll wlch t~e vorda ol the co~rc's decision. We adopted the PQAiti~n of :he

9 ~ou:t af Appeals. Tna Depar~m&nt reaff1r.med che p08iticn adop:Gc

,

l.n. t!1e cct:.::~ar ~ 7, :'~69 lel;t;or i:1 a subaeque~e l.el:tar trcm :he DQpa:~~e~c co Senator Daniel x. Ino~ye (C~C9Q J~u~ry J3, 19&J.)

Oepuey Sol!c~~cr ?e:g~sor.'s co~clus!or. of A~guat J" 1979 is

I expressly ovtJ~rulacl. We c.c:1cluc1e that. the ur..:Lteci Sta=es ha.d no t.:"us't =-RJiPocsi~i.lit!es to ~he r.a.t1vs Slawa!.ians elt~e~ befo:oe Sta~ahccd cr

: ~ I the~eaf:a=.r

51 :I Doputy Selici~or ~e::'i·-.:.!on' s OC~Qbc:r 17. l,97? !,ctter did not. allude ~ to any prior Dapa~t=en~al praeeiccB or op~nlc=8 in support of his

,e S

I, 'I

.y Ir IE! ,-I, ~

tt re , .n J , .. It,

f con.elusic;:. Io the concrar/, the DspD.=tment has staced en the xecord. O~ n~~e=O~3 occa~s!ons th~t thers i~ no trust rsspocaibi11ty to Native' Hc!...,~ii~r.s. We a.~e UDa·llore at a.ny pric;:.; depa:cment:al opinion I in BU~PQrt Qf Deputy SolicicQr Ferguscn's lette~. ~ithi~ the last

J th:"&e ye.ars aloce the Depa~tI!er.t has dan!.ed any t~ust. rs·sponsibi::ic.y ! to native Hawaiians in letter~ c! Februa'~f 2, 19So·ar.d Octo~gr 15, f lSSC, c.o ehe Ot.ai:-::.a:L, Sana..:e CottLrnir.:ee o! ~nru:gy ~nd Natura.l : J.escu'tces. The Oapa:cne.w.ltal ::el'lrese1\taeivtaQ n:!.taz:aeed chiS posS"t1otl ! in testi:r.cny before the S.inatQ Cc:lM:\ic::as on !ne~' and N~tu%'a.l

ReSources on M~~cn 9, 1990, July 2!, ~991, and February 6, i9S2 as well as ~~ t;.c1Mcny bafo~e the Se~aea Select Commlceee on ~diBn ~fai=8 en Auguae &. 1989.

See leteer of OCtober 1" ~992 at 2,.

J:n . r

" By'ri;le II of i'\!.b. L. No. 96-56.5 of De<:&mber 22, 1'80. 94 Stal:. 13'34, Congress established the Nat-lva F.a.wai~ans St.udy Cctrmii'sian and direceed ic to Uconduct· a study ol ehe cultu~a. C88~S a~ ccncer.ns of the Na~iv8 Hawaiians.· T~he Commission prc~ueed·a ~~c.vcl~~ =epc:'t on J'lJ.::.a 23, :!.!1B3, wh:f.c~ lncluc1e.s a cOro'lpr.e.h.ap.1l1vB scudy ct !:.ha demc9"::::,a.;:bie~. his t.o:y and c·u=:-enc COfld!t!.on ot: ~ha nar.i.va ~a\lai!a.na •. -:1:e ~Dr:au9a :!;ca exa.mlned al: length ~ha i'edara.l"- Eawai.ian ;r:elat ion.hip an~ ~r~ ~aj~~ity CCDcl~~e4 t~4~ chere·was no ~sc rela~1ens~ip tlet.ween tns tl'c1t:ild St:.ates a't'ld tbe na.~:!.ve Halltaiians iUll1 no souI:24 :Qaa.1s !ot" t}',~ claim· t.hat. th$ Uni~ad. ~t:a.1:es o~l9d cOQpensat1on. for the taking

!lC1

. (conci~uQ4 ..• )

3

.,.

I.

I

l.

i ~

I , "

) II I.~I ~! r I

f II

t 1J I .... , .. i. ~.

i: \'

11 . ~:

,.' ;;i •

I .

~: ~ . \ "


01/25/05 Tfm 1G:36 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWATTAN AFFATRS

PHJNE ND.

c·· .... ~I .. • ...... '9 \oo'llS""·· .- ft~"'- .. 1"!-... ..:II ..... \I ........ ·~ ... "~il" al~~'o",,~' • '-'- ... ,...- _..... -Q "C;',"- - •• :-'.--- --r~".· .,. ; ............ ,.:.. P'-1 _ •• ' III .:.. ..,i'i ..... 8 :x-cacC!st . SCUPB fo~ cu::ural. ec~~ic, t~ad~~!c~al, &~d rQlig1o~a a~VC:2~ty. Tht! C'nitGd Sr.aca9 has been enr.!c~ed !cc\sjlsu:ably by ita o=enneSB tia and ability to accc~cdate d!t~erent cu::~~ae. Th1~ opanr.eea ~i~: a.llcwed ~ach ~roup to re.a.ke it-a Own uniq1.:s contributiQl\ to aU;: na~iol1al lite, ...

&.. This pluralism and ~e invigcratictn !.t btt!lge tQ kfteric&l1 lLfa %>e·r't. in :10 srr.a..ll deqree upon our c:o:mU.t.mGn: to our ~Bderal ayul:em and.' :.t; .a single l:'\!le ?f 1 a,! .. 'rhuS I we 'da noc ligh~11 presume tha~ one g~o\ii» of Americans ~S, 8~ply hr virtue of a shared Qackg:c~nd, Bubje<~ \:0 laga.l l;)~rc!.ene or »er.ef1.t:s tha.t. do n·ot apply to all of ~=-. Thenat-iva Ka.~a.i.:l.ans are descendants of peopl~s. who livec1 in tae Ke.wa:1im ~sl~~ds before ehe a~r~val of BU~Qpeans.· Thts !=po~~ant eo~ocne~ of ~heir culcu1:a.l·herit:sie does'net place' tone :u~,t1ve £a.wai!lL1'1i u::.d~; a le~al r.al~tio~8b!p to the Pede~~l Gcverr_~ene d~ffQrent from the ~elat!o~8b1p the goverr~e~~ h~ w~th it~ other e~t1%e~9. .

II. The United States Had Ne T=ust Re9por.~1b!lity Under the HP.~ ~~ior to ~awaii's Statehood

A. 9tt.c:'(.g roun:i

l=rior to l£a.wa!!.ls !SS9 iid.m!.ss:'on ~o t~9 Unio::. :r.e Hawa!.ia!l Ho=gg CCI:':.I!8ifio::..Ac~ of 1920 (HliCA). "lias t.he or.!!, FecQral lo!!s.l.at1on chat 1d.ent 1 ~teu nat :'-.re Ha.wai!.ar.s a.s a s~oua to oa C~8at9d. aeparac ely 'rom cellar in.""abit.ancs o! the T .. rritQr~t of Ha.waii.!' ~2 se.a.t, lOa., formerly CQciifiiK! a,SiI 48 u.s.c. 5 ~91. In th~ MeA, CangreS's QSJ tabl ish6c1 a lill\1 ~ed bcxnesteadir.g prc~:ram ava.11able onl~1 CO

~( •.• CQne~ucd) . of Native aborig:tn.l land rigbts (Report, Vcl.ume X at 313 -79). 'i'hes@ issues a.re critic:al to the ellacuss ion in this memorar..d.u.'Il. 'rhe three :J1em.ers of t:he Study CO~8ion erQIn Hawaii dissent.ed. oar analysis in =his opinion 18 in baste ag%eement wieh the car.clug~DnS of the S~udy cammi~.ian majdr~ty.

l' a~ng'ress al'.nexed Hawaii 1:0 the t1~ited Stacea by t.hs JaLDt ~e8a'lution of july', 1898, 30 S~at:. SO. The ,,"oint. R.esolutio:1 a.a.kes no ment1gr. of natlve Hawaiia.:r:.s. Cong:e.~ l':cric5.ec.\ a 9ave:wnenc ~Ol: t:he tBt:2:'itGZ"'/ of .a.waii ))y the Hawaii O~!ianic Ac~ o.t April 30. 1900, 31 S~at. 14:'. "!'he O%9'anl:c Ac1: granted UiU.tec:l StaC'D8 ci~£=ellsb:!.p !;Q all citi~e~8 oe ~e aepUblic ~f ~waii.·. X~ ase~iBba4 Hawaii as a.n D inccl:'pc:rat.ed a . t~n':lt:Q:y in. p1:ep~Z'atiC?D for s~a.tehocd );Iy ext.eud1~9 to it tbe C0Z'1et1cut.ion and lawe c~ t,he Uaieec;l ·Ieates • The Organ,.c Act.~kes DO meft~ior. of Dative Kaw.!iana. .

"

Ia1 004

Te=~ of 11 ii4W4

Cong C::r.rlll t!1e of t amen by~ 0: t Ten t~e

......... ~ ..... ~ ::: t acre !'9~;

, a."e.! ce:-t .anc 0: 1 t.he !!!.t:e dear: t.!!.e tau la.ne ~amc:

to t:. O! t p.o,\ a.s a. t!:.s~ r:a~ cal! t:":.:c

;

Y At bu~ . ,;a.p! 'tol\. anct

01/25/05 Tfm 1G:36 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWATTAN AFFATRS

PHJNE ND.

c·· .... ~I .. • ...... '9 \oo'llS""·· .- ft~"'- .. 1"!-... ..:II ..... \I ........ ·~ ... "~il" al~~'o",,~' • '-'- ... ,...- _..... -Q "C;',"- - •• :-'.--- --r~".· .,. ; ............ ,.:.. P'-1 _ •• ' III .:.. ..,i'i ..... 8 :x-cacC!st . SCUPB fo~ cu::ural. ec~~ic, t~ad~~!c~al, &~d rQlig1o~a a~VC:2~ty. Tht! C'nitGd Sr.aca9 has been enr.!c~ed !cc\sjlsu:ably by ita o=enneSB tia and ability to accc~cdate d!t~erent cu::~~ae. Th1~ opanr.eea ~i~: a.llcwed ~ach ~roup to re.a.ke it-a Own uniq1.:s contributiQl\ to aU;: na~iol1al lite, ...

&.. This pluralism and ~e invigcratictn !.t btt!lge tQ kfteric&l1 lLfa %>e·r't. in :10 srr.a..ll deqree upon our c:o:mU.t.mGn: to our ~Bderal ayul:em and.' :.t; .a single l:'\!le ?f 1 a,! .. 'rhuS I we 'da noc ligh~11 presume tha~ one g~o\ii» of Americans ~S, 8~ply hr virtue of a shared Qackg:c~nd, Bubje<~ \:0 laga.l l;)~rc!.ene or »er.ef1.t:s tha.t. do n·ot apply to all of ~=-. Thenat-iva Ka.~a.i.:l.ans are descendants of peopl~s. who livec1 in tae Ke.wa:1im ~sl~~ds before ehe a~r~val of BU~Qpeans.· Thts !=po~~ant eo~ocne~ of ~heir culcu1:a.l·herit:sie does'net place' tone :u~,t1ve £a.wai!lL1'1i u::.d~; a le~al r.al~tio~8b!p to the Pede~~l Gcverr_~ene d~ffQrent from the ~elat!o~8b1p the goverr~e~~ h~ w~th it~ other e~t1%e~9. .

II. The United States Had Ne T=ust Re9por.~1b!lity Under the HP.~ ~~ior to ~awaii's Statehood

A. 9tt.c:'(.g roun:i

l=rior to l£a.wa!!.ls !SS9 iid.m!.ss:'on ~o t~9 Unio::. :r.e Hawa!.ia!l Ho=gg CCI:':.I!8ifio::..Ac~ of 1920 (HliCA). "lias t.he or.!!, FecQral lo!!s.l.at1on chat 1d.ent 1 ~teu nat :'-.re Ha.wai!.ar.s a.s a s~oua to oa C~8at9d. aeparac ely 'rom cellar in.""abit.ancs o! the T .. rritQr~t of Ha.waii.!' ~2 se.a.t, lOa., formerly CQciifiiK! a,SiI 48 u.s.c. 5 ~91. In th~ MeA, CangreS's QSJ tabl ish6c1 a lill\1 ~ed bcxnesteadir.g prc~:ram ava.11able onl~1 CO

~( •.• CQne~ucd) . of Native aborig:tn.l land rigbts (Report, Vcl.ume X at 313 -79). 'i'hes@ issues a.re critic:al to the ellacuss ion in this memorar..d.u.'Il. 'rhe three :J1em.ers of t:he Study CO~8ion erQIn Hawaii dissent.ed. oar analysis in =his opinion 18 in baste ag%eement wieh the car.clug~DnS of the S~udy cammi~.ian majdr~ty.

l' a~ng'ress al'.nexed Hawaii 1:0 the t1~ited Stacea by t.hs JaLDt ~e8a'lution of july', 1898, 30 S~at:. SO. The ,,"oint. R.esolutio:1 a.a.kes no ment1gr. of natlve Hawaiia.:r:.s. Cong:e.~ l':cric5.ec.\ a 9ave:wnenc ~Ol: t:he tBt:2:'itGZ"'/ of .a.waii ))y the Hawaii O~!ianic Ac~ o.t April 30. 1900, 31 S~at. 14:'. "!'he O%9'anl:c Ac1: granted UiU.tec:l StaC'D8 ci~£=ellsb:!.p !;Q all citi~e~8 oe ~e aepUblic ~f ~waii.·. X~ ase~iBba4 Hawaii as a.n D inccl:'pc:rat.ed a . t~n':lt:Q:y in. p1:ep~Z'atiC?D for s~a.tehocd );Iy ext.eud1~9 to it tbe C0Z'1et1cut.ion and lawe c~ t,he Uaieec;l ·Ieates • The Organ,.c Act.~kes DO meft~ior. of Dative Kaw.!iana. .

"

Ia1 004

Te=~ of 11 ii4W4

Cong C::r.rlll t!1e of t amen by~ 0: t Ten t~e

......... ~ ..... ~ ::: t acre !'9~;

, a."e.! ce:-t .anc 0: 1 t.he !!!.t:e dear: t.!!.e tau la.ne ~amc:

to t:. O! t p.o,\ a.s a. t!:.s~ r:a~ cal! t:":.:c

;

Y At bu~ . ,;a.p! 'tol\. anct


01/25/05 Tlm 15:37 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWATTAN AFFATRS Ia1 005

=ROM:

'J I ..... .. if> , 1',

I .' '

I,~~ •

1"WiJe" er,&i' ls1B 1:ba .4 ••••• .' ....

.' "toif : ~ti: .~=" • a:@.,.

~ aB~

~."

:':~i

PHONE NO. Jan~ 25 2005 01: 11PM P6

i~iv1cu~l cative F.A~ai~a~~v·to be ~dmi~!ste~ed w~d !unded by :~e !~r=i;Q~. The ~~CA aefined h~ative Hawaiian q as -a~y cescend~~ 0' noc ~ess than one-talf part blood Q! t~e races !~.na~it~n9 ~he c&waiian t31ar.ds previous to 1i7B.I 42 Stat. 108. .

Congress vesta~ ~he a~ni9t~ation of tha .HECA iD a t1ve·mambe~ Commission cc~~osed oe the Governor of Rawai! and eou~ eie!zans or the 'l'ar::i tc~ appoint-ad by t~e Governor, a.nd cont:ir:necS by the Senaee of the ~6~rito£ia! le~islature. By Ac~ o! JUly 2S, 1SlS, Congress ~~~dea ~~e HHCA by re~ovini t~e GQVerr.or trom &ha CQ~i~s1on and by givi!'lg t:'e Covel."'r.o::,- a.uthority to appoip-E; and. to .emove ~he Q\en\!)Qrs of the Co~m!g8io~ with teQ advice and consent 0; th~ S~~tQ of the Tat::=..:cry. ';3 Stat:. !:I 04 • By Act of July 9, 1952, Cong;;G~ expii.odad the C~iss!cr. to S6vet. ~e~~ers. '6 Stat. 515.

'-

Zn De=:~oo 20~ c: e~a ~~, C==9~8es aut~o:i%ed =~a ee:-aside o! v~=~ous p~~l~c la~=s, cal!ec 'available !£~~Sl ~ to be ~sed fer t~e ~l.t~~oSO o~ ~d=:"·J'G ::'o:es:.e:td.i::a Q:- :c=- ge~:!t:~'! 1.~':!'5it:.c 43 Q.~:ho:i.:@d in the ~_~C~. "~S~a~. :Q9. -Co~9~eao ~c=Qd :a Qr ~ale~ec var~ocs acreage ~=~:n e~e .:.ya,':':a.bl(! lil.-:~:3 !:~. A.c::o 0: !'34, ~9:!S, 19l?, i94:', :'94~, 19·19 &:lC l~S2.i' -:: __ e ccs~~ipl:.ior. 0: tt:.e 14::=0 ~et; ~slde lUS &'1ailable le.::.c!s WlLd :'c:sc chan p::ec:LrJ~ Ccc:u.::ic: :J~c~io::. 203 e:ccl,:ded c:c:"to-in cacec:or!e:J o! lAnds 'Witbi~ th.e=!.= bcur.c!a~:le:J f~o:n t!\e progrBIn Anc. ber;~'1.:~ e -:he a.reas toO be se.1:. a.s:"de we:-e !oosell' desc~il::ed in t:f!r::r~ 0: location and of ac~eage. !n some i~sca~ces, Cong:es5 raqu!red the COlT'lRliss ior..,. eub~ ec= to tba app::O".;"a.l o! t.~e S~c.:'flta::y of the ~nter1Q~. to set aslce the available lands ~rcm a larger ac:aage described in cr.e K.~CA. 1s2 St.a.t. 110. Congress initially escablished t.~a honuu!tead~:1g program on a trial bas!s by allowing the Commission ~o use- only a small, specifically iden~if1ed. pcrt10n of the available lands for tr.e first five years of, the commissiQ~'s~lifQ. cong;Qsa ~ernaved tais ~a~t~ic~icn by Act of Ma~ch " 1925~ hue !t conc1nued to t.alta a ca,'ut.iol.1s at)proaeh. ~5 Stat .. 246. The 19iislative histc:y o~ the 1921 Ac:~, and of its! pertinent: aJt.endmant:s, S :10: !:elpful in providing a. rat.ic::.a.le for th;!'s caUt.10D. Section 204 {l i of the RHCA, a.s amended, provided thAt: tha Ic:o:n:;:"ss!.gn sho.ll not le~se, \!.sa. npr dispose of mO:'G t.r.a.:l ~went.y ~hQusanc! (20,.000' ~eres o·f. ~he a~eas ot .. i ' '... .. -I" 1 '"" · t~ • • • reawa .. an nome La.n_a .or S6tt. emec.~ ~'1 r.a.tl.VP. "awa1!.ar-s :.~ or.y caler.d::1:' ~:.vc ·yea.~ period,. II 'rhia z:oe8t:d.ct,i.or. re:r.a.i~ed in the HHCA ~~:ough t~= cf!ec~!ve daee of the StDte~ccd Ac:.

I -.

N At r.na cim8 Of 1cs annexation, "a"a .. ~1 was noe. a hon-.cgenou8 8o~1RCY ~ut was compose4 o~ ~&tive Havaiiar.s, ~~9rleaDS. English. Chinese, -:-apa:unre" ~cl cu:he:' e~h!1ic g~gUp~.. .J::CClr .. marriage was common. SIJQ . Vol.w:-.e I of ~~e' !tar.!.vs Ha.wuiana S tu.dy CommiJ!J.iol'l. !tapo!:.:, Tablt!8 3 a=~ 4 a~ 68-69 a~d texe at 3S-44, 60-6&_

Va;apQct1valy, 48 S~~~. 717 ·(1934), 49.St~e. g" (1935J, SQ Stac. 491 (3.9372,55 ,Stac. '82 (1941), 58 Stat. 2GO (119'44). G2 S·ta.t. 29'S, i03 (1948) ~d " Scat.· 511 (1952). ~

s ~

.. '

\ t

1 i

i , r

I I '·1 ,il

Ii ~~

f ~

. ~ :. ~ ·t

if

~ 'I h . ' ..

01/25/05 Tlm 15:37 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWATTAN AFFATRS Ia1 005

=ROM:

'J I ..... .. if> , 1',

I .' '

I,~~ •

1"WiJe" er,&i' ls1B 1:ba .4 ••••• .' ....

.' "toif : ~ti: .~=" • a:@.,.

~ aB~

~."

:':~i

PHONE NO. Jan~ 25 2005 01: 11PM P6

i~iv1cu~l cative F.A~ai~a~~v·to be ~dmi~!ste~ed w~d !unded by :~e !~r=i;Q~. The ~~CA aefined h~ative Hawaiian q as -a~y cescend~~ 0' noc ~ess than one-talf part blood Q! t~e races !~.na~it~n9 ~he c&waiian t31ar.ds previous to 1i7B.I 42 Stat. 108. .

Congress vesta~ ~he a~ni9t~ation of tha .HECA iD a t1ve·mambe~ Commission cc~~osed oe the Governor of Rawai! and eou~ eie!zans or the 'l'ar::i tc~ appoint-ad by t~e Governor, a.nd cont:ir:necS by the Senaee of the ~6~rito£ia! le~islature. By Ac~ o! JUly 2S, 1SlS, Congress ~~~dea ~~e HHCA by re~ovini t~e GQVerr.or trom &ha CQ~i~s1on and by givi!'lg t:'e Covel."'r.o::,- a.uthority to appoip-E; and. to .emove ~he Q\en\!)Qrs of the Co~m!g8io~ with teQ advice and consent 0; th~ S~~tQ of the Tat::=..:cry. ';3 Stat:. !:I 04 • By Act of July 9, 1952, Cong;;G~ expii.odad the C~iss!cr. to S6vet. ~e~~ers. '6 Stat. 515.

'-

Zn De=:~oo 20~ c: e~a ~~, C==9~8es aut~o:i%ed =~a ee:-aside o! v~=~ous p~~l~c la~=s, cal!ec 'available !£~~Sl ~ to be ~sed fer t~e ~l.t~~oSO o~ ~d=:"·J'G ::'o:es:.e:td.i::a Q:- :c=- ge~:!t:~'! 1.~':!'5it:.c 43 Q.~:ho:i.:@d in the ~_~C~. "~S~a~. :Q9. -Co~9~eao ~c=Qd :a Qr ~ale~ec var~ocs acreage ~=~:n e~e .:.ya,':':a.bl(! lil.-:~:3 !:~. A.c::o 0: !'34, ~9:!S, 19l?, i94:', :'94~, 19·19 &:lC l~S2.i' -:: __ e ccs~~ipl:.ior. 0: tt:.e 14::=0 ~et; ~slde lUS &'1ailable le.::.c!s WlLd :'c:sc chan p::ec:LrJ~ Ccc:u.::ic: :J~c~io::. 203 e:ccl,:ded c:c:"to-in cacec:or!e:J o! lAnds 'Witbi~ th.e=!.= bcur.c!a~:le:J f~o:n t!\e progrBIn Anc. ber;~'1.:~ e -:he a.reas toO be se.1:. a.s:"de we:-e !oosell' desc~il::ed in t:f!r::r~ 0: location and of ac~eage. !n some i~sca~ces, Cong:es5 raqu!red the COlT'lRliss ior..,. eub~ ec= to tba app::O".;"a.l o! t.~e S~c.:'flta::y of the ~nter1Q~. to set aslce the available lands ~rcm a larger ac:aage described in cr.e K.~CA. 1s2 St.a.t. 110. Congress initially escablished t.~a honuu!tead~:1g program on a trial bas!s by allowing the Commission ~o use- only a small, specifically iden~if1ed. pcrt10n of the available lands for tr.e first five years of, the commissiQ~'s~lifQ. cong;Qsa ~ernaved tais ~a~t~ic~icn by Act of Ma~ch " 1925~ hue !t conc1nued to t.alta a ca,'ut.iol.1s at)proaeh. ~5 Stat .. 246. The 19iislative histc:y o~ the 1921 Ac:~, and of its! pertinent: aJt.endmant:s, S :10: !:elpful in providing a. rat.ic::.a.le for th;!'s caUt.10D. Section 204 {l i of the RHCA, a.s amended, provided thAt: tha Ic:o:n:;:"ss!.gn sho.ll not le~se, \!.sa. npr dispose of mO:'G t.r.a.:l ~went.y ~hQusanc! (20,.000' ~eres o·f. ~he a~eas ot .. i ' '... .. -I" 1 '"" · t~ • • • reawa .. an nome La.n_a .or S6tt. emec.~ ~'1 r.a.tl.VP. "awa1!.ar-s :.~ or.y caler.d::1:' ~:.vc ·yea.~ period,. II 'rhia z:oe8t:d.ct,i.or. re:r.a.i~ed in the HHCA ~~:ough t~= cf!ec~!ve daee of the StDte~ccd Ac:.

I -.

N At r.na cim8 Of 1cs annexation, "a"a .. ~1 was noe. a hon-.cgenou8 8o~1RCY ~ut was compose4 o~ ~&tive Havaiiar.s, ~~9rleaDS. English. Chinese, -:-apa:unre" ~cl cu:he:' e~h!1ic g~gUp~.. .J::CClr .. marriage was common. SIJQ . Vol.w:-.e I of ~~e' !tar.!.vs Ha.wuiana S tu.dy CommiJ!J.iol'l. !tapo!:.:, Tablt!8 3 a=~ 4 a~ 68-69 a~d texe at 3S-44, 60-6&_

Va;apQct1valy, 48 S~~~. 717 ·(1934), 49.St~e. g" (1935J, SQ Stac. 491 (3.9372,55 ,Stac. '82 (1941), 58 Stat. 2GO (119'44). G2 S·ta.t. 29'S, i03 (1948) ~d " Scat.· 511 (1952). ~

s ~

.. '

\ t

1 i

i , r

I I '·1 ,il

Ii ~~

f ~

. ~ :. ~ ·t

if

~ 'I h . ' ..


01/25/05 TTm 1~:38 FAX 8085941888 OFe OF HAWATTAN AFPATRS 141006

:'J\tlM :

________________ .1....-._ •• .--.J ______ _

PHONE NO. Jan. 25 2B05 01:11PM P7 11

St:!C:!.<):1 2C6 of t:hPoJ HHc:A. provtc~d tl!a.t th.e pcvers a~~ duc!.ee c: the Gcva=~:l::" the COfl\~ssicner 0: ~uhlic t.anc.s, anc1 :he Beard ot F~~l.!.c: uanc;\s n.lo .:eapuc~ to lands of the 'ter:r~t.ory I' did :lOt. ext ew~ to tho ava:la~le landa~ Section 201 0: th; K3CA ret&~~ed title co the ava11acle lands In the Un:l.t::ed Scates :ul(l ~ut:horizad the leaee oe :he land ~c native Hawa~ia~s fo~ agricultural o~ pasccral purpoaea. Section. 207 of tl1e HHCA also gave che CCIMr.1.Bsion d!.sare:.ion to det.8rrninE: wh~t:her an applicanl: was qualified to perCe", che· candit!ons requi~ed undar the leaa&. Sec:t:io~ 2l~ auc!1ori::ed. the CcmmiSflio!1 to return aZlY 18.:1:'.9 :lot: leaaed. ::'0 nat1v; Hawaiians to the COm:l'.1s8icne~ of Pub:'ic La.nds for' di9posi~1on under a general lease. Unde. sac:io~ 213 of ~he Ac~. e~e tu.nas d.e::i.vec1 from these genaral 12.&.oa&, .. l:oget:1e2:. with 30 percent of the raceipes der1ved f=c= t:h~ leaslng oj! su~ar. c:a!1e land. an,d va.ter licenses I were to -be placed in CUI a.CCOUtlt kr..ow:: as ;he 8!ia\l{aiian heme loa.~ tunc!" to be used, to aQ5Ii~c· lessees m;:le:: cor.dit1ons epecified i~ sectlcns 314 th:oUeh 2~8 of :ha RHCA and Co ceec the &xpenses of ~he Commission ucder s~ction 3~2 ot chs KHCA_ 42 Sta~_ 11S. The amo~t ~hat could be cove~e4 Leto the fucd. nowavs.r, WlrB lirrdted by seccion 2:.3 to $1,000. 000. This an:.cu:u~ was raise~ t:J S2. 000. 000 })y net at Mar 1, 1928. and· t:o is, OGO. 000 by Act. of July 9, 1952. 45 Scac. 246; 66 Stat. 514'. FUn<lS ir. excP'~!! of these sur.tS we~e to ca flva!lable. for use by the 'l'e:::-:'tcn:y !o!!!" o~~r purpose,.

Ccn~=ass 4!~ not aop~opriate funds for t~8 F4waiian HomQ~ p~Qgram. The" abR!lCe of fidera.l apprQP%'1atic:3S was cc~ist:&nt with ~he o~1ginal cong:essional expectation. ~h~ Hc~~e C~ttee Repo:c a.ccompanying !i. A. 13500 that hacams the F .. ,a stated, ·t-%a~ecver. cot il dc:lla.r is. rQqui:red to be app;opriated by the !ec1e:r:tLl G~verM\C!u~::·1 a.a. ASP. No. SJ9, 66th Cong., 2d Seas. , (1920). Instead, i~ provicSed t!'\at the prC)gt~ would be func1ecL 'hr:)~gh tr.a p..!.waiian ~OIl',e loar.. It!:1d. d.eac~1l)ecl allove. Con.g:es8 alse aUthor1Jed, ·:in sictier. 220 of th~ KH~, c~a laglsla~ura af ~he·Terr!t~ry ta approp~!ata out of I:hs ~uaury of ~he Territory such !~s as, it de~d. r..ec:essa:y to .orovide t~e CO~~iSBio~ with tund5 sut!!c~ant to exec~~a wat~r and qt~er ~~v@~o?=en~ ~~cjects an chQXava!ian Home Lar.ds, In iectlcn 12·2. C:ens=-sss ca~Q t~Q ·r.Q."':n~a8iC)r. &ecc"J!u:able to t~CI ":e:"=i.t~r1al lp.i!81atur~ ty re~~!~lng it ~Q sub~lt a hiennial ~eFQr; &8 WQll ~S ar.y ~fec!al repo=~s the lGgi~!~t~rs migh~ require. Al:hoU9h vesting cna a~niat=atLo~ a~ the ~iCA i: u TQ~~~~o~ial Commission under the ~elu!Z'al cye~sisrht· of tr.e Terr1t.or1al lc~i~l&eurB, cor-gress g~ve the SeC~etary of. ~hc %r.:ericr v&riou. 4iic:ote :espons!b111tias 1~ the adminis~ratiOD of tbe'Act. The~e raepcDQib111t!es. de8e~~ed b~lovr conee~c4 de~~~l. pcrtain~! tD the ·use o~ laad tor hcrr..esteadiDg. They bad. nath:l~9' eo clo 'V~th the ... :1atu:oe af t:~a ral.at.icu.ship .he.t1tr.een the Unit.ed Sta.tes a.nd. na.tive ·:A."aii~ •

6 \!

~ • tit

• It.

i ~ ,~ : 't ~

f .. -j , i l ~

j I ~

!

Soc:~ Co:;! cou:. ~cz:'! ~::ca c.!.\l.\J r..:;:-.e for .~~ac ar!.dg ~~=a 0: t app: :'a::.(! ~P..!'fl

::-Qq\.; See:, not :0 C :·~e ( cf t: ~o: ~ CQt"::" .. · eea.t:· i~te: ;l1&~ !:cmal

~~Q S ana.cl adc!t.l an:! COIr:m;

"\9 Sl

t:~a a ~o p -:eltll !.""a.pl.:

'!.'he, I 5t4tt l821 li20

. i:r.ce, t.ane

01/25/05 TTm 1~:38 FAX 8085941888 OFe OF HAWATTAN AFPATRS 141006

:'J\tlM :

________________ .1....-._ •• .--.J ______ _

PHONE NO. Jan. 25 2B05 01:11PM P7 11

St:!C:!.<):1 2C6 of t:hPoJ HHc:A. provtc~d tl!a.t th.e pcvers a~~ duc!.ee c: the Gcva=~:l::" the COfl\~ssicner 0: ~uhlic t.anc.s, anc1 :he Beard ot F~~l.!.c: uanc;\s n.lo .:eapuc~ to lands of the 'ter:r~t.ory I' did :lOt. ext ew~ to tho ava:la~le landa~ Section 201 0: th; K3CA ret&~~ed title co the ava11acle lands In the Un:l.t::ed Scates :ul(l ~ut:horizad the leaee oe :he land ~c native Hawa~ia~s fo~ agricultural o~ pasccral purpoaea. Section. 207 of tl1e HHCA also gave che CCIMr.1.Bsion d!.sare:.ion to det.8rrninE: wh~t:her an applicanl: was qualified to perCe", che· candit!ons requi~ed undar the leaa&. Sec:t:io~ 2l~ auc!1ori::ed. the CcmmiSflio!1 to return aZlY 18.:1:'.9 :lot: leaaed. ::'0 nat1v; Hawaiians to the COm:l'.1s8icne~ of Pub:'ic La.nds for' di9posi~1on under a general lease. Unde. sac:io~ 213 of ~he Ac~. e~e tu.nas d.e::i.vec1 from these genaral 12.&.oa&, .. l:oget:1e2:. with 30 percent of the raceipes der1ved f=c= t:h~ leaslng oj! su~ar. c:a!1e land. an,d va.ter licenses I were to -be placed in CUI a.CCOUtlt kr..ow:: as ;he 8!ia\l{aiian heme loa.~ tunc!" to be used, to aQ5Ii~c· lessees m;:le:: cor.dit1ons epecified i~ sectlcns 314 th:oUeh 2~8 of :ha RHCA and Co ceec the &xpenses of ~he Commission ucder s~ction 3~2 ot chs KHCA_ 42 Sta~_ 11S. The amo~t ~hat could be cove~e4 Leto the fucd. nowavs.r, WlrB lirrdted by seccion 2:.3 to $1,000. 000. This an:.cu:u~ was raise~ t:J S2. 000. 000 })y net at Mar 1, 1928. and· t:o is, OGO. 000 by Act. of July 9, 1952. 45 Scac. 246; 66 Stat. 514'. FUn<lS ir. excP'~!! of these sur.tS we~e to ca flva!lable. for use by the 'l'e:::-:'tcn:y !o!!!" o~~r purpose,.

Ccn~=ass 4!~ not aop~opriate funds for t~8 F4waiian HomQ~ p~Qgram. The" abR!lCe of fidera.l apprQP%'1atic:3S was cc~ist:&nt with ~he o~1ginal cong:essional expectation. ~h~ Hc~~e C~ttee Repo:c a.ccompanying !i. A. 13500 that hacams the F .. ,a stated, ·t-%a~ecver. cot il dc:lla.r is. rQqui:red to be app;opriated by the !ec1e:r:tLl G~verM\C!u~::·1 a.a. ASP. No. SJ9, 66th Cong., 2d Seas. , (1920). Instead, i~ provicSed t!'\at the prC)gt~ would be func1ecL 'hr:)~gh tr.a p..!.waiian ~OIl',e loar.. It!:1d. d.eac~1l)ecl allove. Con.g:es8 alse aUthor1Jed, ·:in sictier. 220 of th~ KH~, c~a laglsla~ura af ~he·Terr!t~ry ta approp~!ata out of I:hs ~uaury of ~he Territory such !~s as, it de~d. r..ec:essa:y to .orovide t~e CO~~iSBio~ with tund5 sut!!c~ant to exec~~a wat~r and qt~er ~~v@~o?=en~ ~~cjects an chQXava!ian Home Lar.ds, In iectlcn 12·2. C:ens=-sss ca~Q t~Q ·r.Q."':n~a8iC)r. &ecc"J!u:able to t~CI ":e:"=i.t~r1al lp.i!81atur~ ty re~~!~lng it ~Q sub~lt a hiennial ~eFQr; &8 WQll ~S ar.y ~fec!al repo=~s the lGgi~!~t~rs migh~ require. Al:hoU9h vesting cna a~niat=atLo~ a~ the ~iCA i: u TQ~~~~o~ial Commission under the ~elu!Z'al cye~sisrht· of tr.e Terr1t.or1al lc~i~l&eurB, cor-gress g~ve the SeC~etary of. ~hc %r.:ericr v&riou. 4iic:ote :espons!b111tias 1~ the adminis~ratiOD of tbe'Act. The~e raepcDQib111t!es. de8e~~ed b~lovr conee~c4 de~~~l. pcrtain~! tD the ·use o~ laad tor hcrr..esteadiDg. They bad. nath:l~9' eo clo 'V~th the ... :1atu:oe af t:~a ral.at.icu.ship .he.t1tr.een the Unit.ed Sta.tes a.nd. na.tive ·:A."aii~ •

6 \!

~ • tit

• It.

i ~ ,~ : 't ~

f .. -j , i l ~

j I ~

!

Soc:~ Co:;! cou:. ~cz:'! ~::ca c.!.\l.\J r..:;:-.e for .~~ac ar!.dg ~~=a 0: t app: :'a::.(! ~P..!'fl

::-Qq\.; See:, not :0 C :·~e ( cf t: ~o: ~ CQt"::" .. · eea.t:· i~te: ;l1&~ !:cmal

~~Q S ana.cl adc!t.l an:! COIr:m;

"\9 Sl

t:~a a ~o p -:eltll !.""a.pl.:

'!.'he, I 5t4tt l821 li20

. i:r.ce, t.ane


.1

01/2a/05 11m lr.~38 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWATIAN AFPATRS IaI 007 ____________ ---'-___ --1-

1 on "" • _____ _

I I .& .,

I I ~

i i I

~ ; t ,

PHONEI(). Jan. 25 2005 01: 12PM P8

Scc:io~ 204{1} of t~e cr~g!~al A~t ~equi~ed the cor.sane 0: both C~~g=e~a 4~d che Sec=.et~=y of the I~~e~io~ b~fore additional lan48 c~~~d ~e opened to ho~~~t~~di~g ~fte= the inic1al eLva·vea~ :rial pc~iQd. Sec:eta~~~l app~ovAl W&S re~i~ed und~r s~c~ion ~04(2) at t)-.m 1..~CA oefo.t"e a.'.rQ.il~t="le l.!lnd~ subjec:t to ~ lea:u: with a. withdrawal clause were i:. ~ac:. withr.!rawn from tbe lease and :Dade ava.ila.ble !Ol: hQ=e9tea~:':l'3. 3ec=etar!.~: a.ppro~.ra.l was r!qui::'t!d '.lr.der sec~ior. 204 (3) for ~~~ CO~!.!Je ion's selection. o! a vai.!a.bl 5 lact!a from a larger "area tta.: Co::.q:-ess had designated. Sy Ac"t ot June 18. 1954, cong:ess acdec tc S6C:!Or. 204 of t~e HRCA by au:~~r!zir.~ the Ccrr~i~s1on to er:gasa i:: la.:~ e:cc:h~~ges in orda::" to oet'.c.er 9f!ectl:~te the ;5:\U;POSOIil of chs ~~CA ~= to ~cns~l~date its ~old~~gs_ &2 Stat~ 262. The a~~~Qval of t~E Sp.~~aea~y, c~e Gcver:o~, t~e Cc~is&~e~~~ o~ Publi= :ar.ds, and ~~Q-c~irds ~f the ~~mb~r~ ~: :CQ 3ca=~ of ~ubl~e Lands wp.~e ~ll requi=ed ~rio~ to a~ QXC~~~Q." ~Gaa leng~hy approval :aqui~~~ar.~a i~volvi~~ TQ:=~to:i~: af~!~!als i~ adc~~!cr. =0 :~e Sec~et&ry s~sge5c that t~Q p:otaction of t~e ~~lic ~a~ds o~ =awaii ~Ot ~~c!u~QC wi~h~n the a'rai!a~le lan~a was at lQ~st as i",por~a~: to Congraea ~& was ~akiAg co:sc11dated la~ holdings av~ilacle to ~~e Co:::tiss:'or.., Se\:retarial approVl11 was =e~lred \1ndar Be~cicn 212 c! the HHCA bcfQ~e the CO~~i98ion could sq~u~e the recc~n of land, !o= ~chtescead.i~g pu~cseg, that had been earlier t.ri.\.n.e:er:~ed to the cc:;-,.-::!se ioner of ~~!.1c Lared:. and lee.e c~ under a genera! lease. "lhe stat.~::.o"Y ic!leme appca2:':5 to be d!rec:ted toward iJrotectlll9 the i.::~e:-est: c:= the n-1waii pcpulaca n~ large in t~e p:tbllc le..cdB, rat:hex :~"-:l !an o::omoti=~ - the whol e19al~ U8"e of t~e a.Ve1.i!.able lanc!s ror ~c~aetarSl~ng, -

t~.1! Sec:ret:ary recair.ed chese ~as1c respcnsilii!1t1es between tne 1921 enacCt:\e!'lC of the lL~CA. a.nd Sta~ehoQd. The Secret:a.:y wt:..a S'iven a small aec!1.t1onal role by Act of July 26, 193.5: to "a.s"s1qna.te a sanitation and =9clL~eion expe~t co ~esidQ i~ Haw~i! and tb work with the Cc~se1on ae t~e C~~ssion'a qxpense in ,carrying OU~ !t& duties. '9 Seat. 50S. _8 .~d th!s during t~a mid-1930's.

The above discueaic!: has a~.al:i:ted the l:\aj(J~ provisions af tha SliCA. ~c p:,ov:"s!.ou of the l-:ECA mlces explicit :efe:r.an.ca to a. tl:USC 'rela.t!.~~sh':"p, ~ i:1 Cl.::::' opinion :lone" ca.u be read tD do ,so

. ~~plic~tly. See the diacus8~aD i~ Se~eian a, i~!;a,

-.

'!'he- rr.a.jo:' aX'g~e~~ a.dvanced by those who c·onee::.d tha.t t.he-·1lnit:aa S~ates served as a t:xustee fer native Hawai.1ana under tlle" nllCA lrOQ. 1921 to is"59 etems from a· .single sentence o~ t.estimony "de1

9ivered in 1920 befQt:e the House Ter::ri toriea COmn\itt:~e by then- Secretary of ~he Ir.te!:lor Fra.n.1tltn Lane, In urging enac:t:m8n~" of ~ha liY-CA, See:!:'lit~r/. ~na s~a~ed e~~~~

. '-\ . . • ~~e na~ives ot the islands". • . are our wa%'Cls '. • ". for \ihOIl1 i:o: a se~se we a.re cr.Jseeeti

,7

.~"

." Ii j; rl :1 [ J

i

l' • , i ,

l J , : ~ I

.1

01/2a/05 11m lr.~38 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWATIAN AFPATRS IaI 007 ____________ ---'-___ --1-

1 on "" • _____ _

I I .& .,

I I ~

i i I

~ ; t ,

PHONEI(). Jan. 25 2005 01: 12PM P8

Scc:io~ 204{1} of t~e cr~g!~al A~t ~equi~ed the cor.sane 0: both C~~g=e~a 4~d che Sec=.et~=y of the I~~e~io~ b~fore additional lan48 c~~~d ~e opened to ho~~~t~~di~g ~fte= the inic1al eLva·vea~ :rial pc~iQd. Sec:eta~~~l app~ovAl W&S re~i~ed und~r s~c~ion ~04(2) at t)-.m 1..~CA oefo.t"e a.'.rQ.il~t="le l.!lnd~ subjec:t to ~ lea:u: with a. withdrawal clause were i:. ~ac:. withr.!rawn from tbe lease and :Dade ava.ila.ble !Ol: hQ=e9tea~:':l'3. 3ec=etar!.~: a.ppro~.ra.l was r!qui::'t!d '.lr.der sec~ior. 204 (3) for ~~~ CO~!.!Je ion's selection. o! a vai.!a.bl 5 lact!a from a larger "area tta.: Co::.q:-ess had designated. Sy Ac"t ot June 18. 1954, cong:ess acdec tc S6C:!Or. 204 of t~e HRCA by au:~~r!zir.~ the Ccrr~i~s1on to er:gasa i:: la.:~ e:cc:h~~ges in orda::" to oet'.c.er 9f!ectl:~te the ;5:\U;POSOIil of chs ~~CA ~= to ~cns~l~date its ~old~~gs_ &2 Stat~ 262. The a~~~Qval of t~E Sp.~~aea~y, c~e Gcver:o~, t~e Cc~is&~e~~~ o~ Publi= :ar.ds, and ~~Q-c~irds ~f the ~~mb~r~ ~: :CQ 3ca=~ of ~ubl~e Lands wp.~e ~ll requi=ed ~rio~ to a~ QXC~~~Q." ~Gaa leng~hy approval :aqui~~~ar.~a i~volvi~~ TQ:=~to:i~: af~!~!als i~ adc~~!cr. =0 :~e Sec~et&ry s~sge5c that t~Q p:otaction of t~e ~~lic ~a~ds o~ =awaii ~Ot ~~c!u~QC wi~h~n the a'rai!a~le lan~a was at lQ~st as i",por~a~: to Congraea ~& was ~akiAg co:sc11dated la~ holdings av~ilacle to ~~e Co:::tiss:'or.., Se\:retarial approVl11 was =e~lred \1ndar Be~cicn 212 c! the HHCA bcfQ~e the CO~~i98ion could sq~u~e the recc~n of land, !o= ~chtescead.i~g pu~cseg, that had been earlier t.ri.\.n.e:er:~ed to the cc:;-,.-::!se ioner of ~~!.1c Lared:. and lee.e c~ under a genera! lease. "lhe stat.~::.o"Y ic!leme appca2:':5 to be d!rec:ted toward iJrotectlll9 the i.::~e:-est: c:= the n-1waii pcpulaca n~ large in t~e p:tbllc le..cdB, rat:hex :~"-:l !an o::omoti=~ - the whol e19al~ U8"e of t~e a.Ve1.i!.able lanc!s ror ~c~aetarSl~ng, -

t~.1! Sec:ret:ary recair.ed chese ~as1c respcnsilii!1t1es between tne 1921 enacCt:\e!'lC of the lL~CA. a.nd Sta~ehoQd. The Secret:a.:y wt:..a S'iven a small aec!1.t1onal role by Act of July 26, 193.5: to "a.s"s1qna.te a sanitation and =9clL~eion expe~t co ~esidQ i~ Haw~i! and tb work with the Cc~se1on ae t~e C~~ssion'a qxpense in ,carrying OU~ !t& duties. '9 Seat. 50S. _8 .~d th!s during t~a mid-1930's.

The above discueaic!: has a~.al:i:ted the l:\aj(J~ provisions af tha SliCA. ~c p:,ov:"s!.ou of the l-:ECA mlces explicit :efe:r.an.ca to a. tl:USC 'rela.t!.~~sh':"p, ~ i:1 Cl.::::' opinion :lone" ca.u be read tD do ,so

. ~~plic~tly. See the diacus8~aD i~ Se~eian a, i~!;a,

-.

'!'he- rr.a.jo:' aX'g~e~~ a.dvanced by those who c·onee::.d tha.t t.he-·1lnit:aa S~ates served as a t:xustee fer native Hawai.1ana under tlle" nllCA lrOQ. 1921 to is"59 etems from a· .single sentence o~ t.estimony "de1

9ivered in 1920 befQt:e the House Ter::ri toriea COmn\itt:~e by then- Secretary of ~he Ir.te!:lor Fra.n.1tltn Lane, In urging enac:t:m8n~" of ~ha liY-CA, See:!:'lit~r/. ~na s~a~ed e~~~~

. '-\ . . • ~~e na~ives ot the islands". • . are our wa%'Cls '. • ". for \ihOIl1 i:o: a se~se we a.re cr.Jseeeti

,7

.~"

." Ii j; rl :1 [ J

i

l' • , i ,

l J , : ~ I


01/25/05 TIlR Hj: 39 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWAIIAN AFFATRS IaI 008

PHONE NJ. Jan. 25 20es 01:13PM P9 · J

ThaI: s~n:~llC8 ii, in ou: v!ew, tOO ~ea.k a rae!! 0:1 '''hic~_ cu c:cns~r.,lC:~ a Ciduc:'a.:y rl!la~j.onship. ThC!rc is nQth1ng co Bl.:ggest :.=a.t. secretary LallG 01ntcnc.cc1 to offer '" legal conclusion. In its report.. the Co~~t~ee it~elf Qi~ not in~e~ret Sacreca.y ~.n.'p sca~emant as SU9gSS tir.g a t:'\:sc rela.tionship ncr did ic hin.t a.t: a torus!: %ela~ioDah1p. Noebing o~ the point appears in the ConQX2pftlpcal Secgrd dttba.cel!l on tha leg1.s1atioll. Alc!lcugb. we 'inc t.he 9t:.atu~a eo be cle&~ on this poin.t. we have .allilQ exa.mined r:he his°l:ol:y ot the legislat:'on ~hat becall\tl the Hawa.iian nomes Co:E\."r\isg ion .nct., 19 20. and t.here is na Sl.&g~l:!!lcien from any SOU=~B, oehe r t.ha:1 Sec:eca.ry Lane' g otf·haDd re:r.ark, '!hat t.~ft tin1ted Scates would sarve a.; J. tru5It,Qg fo::c.he !)C!'le!ieia::-:.es o~ r.he Act. We r.!.ve. tu~~har. Qy..:;.minaci the legisla~!ve cisi-cry of ~~er.d~e~:s to the KK~ e~ac~Qd bQtween 1921 and 1959, and ~p. f!nd nc h~t or 8~ggestlo~ t~~t the U~ited Staces would serle as c~~scee. .

The only C&~G lav on po1n~ is a dec1s~o~ o~ the Su~~cme Cour: of navaii 1.."1 1982, ,p..huna v. Dgpartment 2i Haurdgi2~ Kcc.'DQ ·,iJ, .... c8 , 154 P'..a • .". 127 (1982~ i 6~O P.2ci J-l61 (J.982), i:: ~hich the CC\lr= by way of dic,tllg ~:ated a eer.crarl view. Ie stuced tr~t befote Statehocd the Or.i~ed Sta.r-ee had t'l. Ut:us~ obligation" to ~atJ.va .Ha.\tla.iiane, t:as1ng its st~t~menc al~~a: entirely an the sant~nce of Secrecar,y Lane quoted above. The United .s=at~:s WitS r.Ot a pa.~ey to the Ahuea litiga.tion. In the ci=~~~t~cce, We do not find the dec~Bion helpf"l QQ this s\lloj act. 0

B. ~lyeis

In the fo~lowing discussion, we concluc!e (1) the frdCA did. not crea~a a. t:ruar.. and !21 the Un1ced o States c1id net. t.a.'/8 a trust ress:ons1b11ity in cha ad:nir.iscra.cion of the Hawai:l.a.n I\0C\89 ~res!1\m d~ri:lg !r;.wa1i' s :8~ritQrial period.

ThoSlCl whc a.::sr~B i:1 :'a.vor of a true teesh!.p rgl Ii for t:~1! ':oj::! tee! s tatea ur~8r the Hn~ po!nt to deci~~c~~ per:alni~g to :bQ In4!ans fo~ suppo~t; t~e~afore, we curn fl~s~ to an e~inacion of the la~ on tr.a~ B~jec~. We ccnc!udc I~diAn law ~s inmp~cBlea. As ~xplair.ed mCJ1:e tul:'y k:elow, ca.ti~ Ea.wa.i!.at'.8 do not c:anst.~tut.e a 0 P trl.ba. d i= 2rlM 'Vb St.as. qf Ka\l'~1, '064 1'.2d 623, &27 (9th Cil:'. 1.S8s) , cc;rt;. Moied, 414 U.S. 1055 (19

0

86). Neither t~e BureAU of Indian Affair" nor ~ay ctbG~ agency or d~par~ent of the Un~ced SCates Govet~~ent Pa:;:a Accox-ded them tri.bal reCOiD3.ticn. .l.d. a~ 625. Congress excluded na.t1ve HawaiiaAD f~cm or~a.."l%ing aa %ndian t.ribes by section 13 a: the lDd:Lan Keorgan1zal:ion Ace ot JUne 18, 1934

0

, 25 U. S • ~. 5 473 (IRAJ • The:IRA dOeJI Z1Qe a.pply to the ee~'rit.o~ies 01: insular possessior.. at ~be United Stat:se I, w:li:h the except.1ol1 o( P.l~uka. Price. =~ra at '26.

AS 0 co ~t'.e :roClia.n analogy. ill Uni ~'::l 'tiCAl y', Miteh,l}., 463 1'1. S. :.O! t1.983), Ua~tGbll\ 1:;r), c~. supreme CQ\l::t: explUlIeci ~o~e ci:-C'WlUlta11C8a under ... r..ich che Uni!:aci St"CGS ww14 be ~~lc:l '0 t.ha du.tiras ~f :L c:anmoll

8

! • I

:~ ;\

§

J Jf

10..w I ci.7J: "co~ t:-:e c= . . S1:at JU:-! ct',: ... -.... rod.51:"

f

I' i j I .. i , , l ~ i:

~

"h.e ~t; In ~ exis and. a,SIiU ac 2 Stae Ace

• les&. rela befa c.:CJ!9 ethr. i21 I.: ~

~Btw at t

~ T!-~lS

01/25/05 TIlR Hj: 39 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWAIIAN AFFATRS IaI 008

PHONE NJ. Jan. 25 20es 01:13PM P9 · J

ThaI: s~n:~llC8 ii, in ou: v!ew, tOO ~ea.k a rae!! 0:1 '''hic~_ cu c:cns~r.,lC:~ a Ciduc:'a.:y rl!la~j.onship. ThC!rc is nQth1ng co Bl.:ggest :.=a.t. secretary LallG 01ntcnc.cc1 to offer '" legal conclusion. In its report.. the Co~~t~ee it~elf Qi~ not in~e~ret Sacreca.y ~.n.'p sca~emant as SU9gSS tir.g a t:'\:sc rela.tionship ncr did ic hin.t a.t: a torus!: %ela~ioDah1p. Noebing o~ the point appears in the ConQX2pftlpcal Secgrd dttba.cel!l on tha leg1.s1atioll. Alc!lcugb. we 'inc t.he 9t:.atu~a eo be cle&~ on this poin.t. we have .allilQ exa.mined r:he his°l:ol:y ot the legislat:'on ~hat becall\tl the Hawa.iian nomes Co:E\."r\isg ion .nct., 19 20. and t.here is na Sl.&g~l:!!lcien from any SOU=~B, oehe r t.ha:1 Sec:eca.ry Lane' g otf·haDd re:r.ark, '!hat t.~ft tin1ted Scates would sarve a.; J. tru5It,Qg fo::c.he !)C!'le!ieia::-:.es o~ r.he Act. We r.!.ve. tu~~har. Qy..:;.minaci the legisla~!ve cisi-cry of ~~er.d~e~:s to the KK~ e~ac~Qd bQtween 1921 and 1959, and ~p. f!nd nc h~t or 8~ggestlo~ t~~t the U~ited Staces would serle as c~~scee. .

The only C&~G lav on po1n~ is a dec1s~o~ o~ the Su~~cme Cour: of navaii 1.."1 1982, ,p..huna v. Dgpartment 2i Haurdgi2~ Kcc.'DQ ·,iJ, .... c8 , 154 P'..a • .". 127 (1982~ i 6~O P.2ci J-l61 (J.982), i:: ~hich the CC\lr= by way of dic,tllg ~:ated a eer.crarl view. Ie stuced tr~t befote Statehocd the Or.i~ed Sta.r-ee had t'l. Ut:us~ obligation" to ~atJ.va .Ha.\tla.iiane, t:as1ng its st~t~menc al~~a: entirely an the sant~nce of Secrecar,y Lane quoted above. The United .s=at~:s WitS r.Ot a pa.~ey to the Ahuea litiga.tion. In the ci=~~~t~cce, We do not find the dec~Bion helpf"l QQ this s\lloj act. 0

B. ~lyeis

In the fo~lowing discussion, we concluc!e (1) the frdCA did. not crea~a a. t:ruar.. and !21 the Un1ced o States c1id net. t.a.'/8 a trust ress:ons1b11ity in cha ad:nir.iscra.cion of the Hawai:l.a.n I\0C\89 ~res!1\m d~ri:lg !r;.wa1i' s :8~ritQrial period.

ThoSlCl whc a.::sr~B i:1 :'a.vor of a true teesh!.p rgl Ii for t:~1! ':oj::! tee! s tatea ur~8r the Hn~ po!nt to deci~~c~~ per:alni~g to :bQ In4!ans fo~ suppo~t; t~e~afore, we curn fl~s~ to an e~inacion of the la~ on tr.a~ B~jec~. We ccnc!udc I~diAn law ~s inmp~cBlea. As ~xplair.ed mCJ1:e tul:'y k:elow, ca.ti~ Ea.wa.i!.at'.8 do not c:anst.~tut.e a 0 P trl.ba. d i= 2rlM 'Vb St.as. qf Ka\l'~1, '064 1'.2d 623, &27 (9th Cil:'. 1.S8s) , cc;rt;. Moied, 414 U.S. 1055 (19

0

86). Neither t~e BureAU of Indian Affair" nor ~ay ctbG~ agency or d~par~ent of the Un~ced SCates Govet~~ent Pa:;:a Accox-ded them tri.bal reCOiD3.ticn. .l.d. a~ 625. Congress excluded na.t1ve HawaiiaAD f~cm or~a.."l%ing aa %ndian t.ribes by section 13 a: the lDd:Lan Keorgan1zal:ion Ace ot JUne 18, 1934

0

, 25 U. S • ~. 5 473 (IRAJ • The:IRA dOeJI Z1Qe a.pply to the ee~'rit.o~ies 01: insular possessior.. at ~be United Stat:se I, w:li:h the except.1ol1 o( P.l~uka. Price. =~ra at '26.

AS 0 co ~t'.e :roClia.n analogy. ill Uni ~'::l 'tiCAl y', Miteh,l}., 463 1'1. S. :.O! t1.983), Ua~tGbll\ 1:;r), c~. supreme CQ\l::t: explUlIeci ~o~e ci:-C'WlUlta11C8a under ... r..ich che Uni!:aci St"CGS ww14 be ~~lc:l '0 t.ha du.tiras ~f :L c:anmoll

8

! • I

:~ ;\

§

J Jf

10..w I ci.7J: "co~ t:-:e c= . . S1:at JU:-! ct',: ... -.... rod.51:"

f

I' i j I .. i , , l ~ i:

~

"h.e ~t; In ~ exis and. a,SIiU ac 2 Stae Ace

• les&. rela befa c.:CJ!9 ethr. i21 I.: ~

~Btw at t

~ T!-~lS


01/25/05 11m 15:40 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWAITAN AFFAIRS fa] 009

~---------------~M ! .,- . Jan. 25 2005 01: 1:3PM P10

. ~ · i

. ' ~ .. ' ..

:-': .. . . , .. ~ .... . .. .Ai

~: , r-~.

fl. s· -. "

!e

·X I I, 'l.Q..., t:\:.at.ee.j!;· Zr; t:.:s.: 'c!eC::!.:I!O:l, t.h.e COU;:\: !our.r! that. various i ci. .... J)er rna=a.ge~e:;.c o:.atuces ga."re the Burea\; Q: India.n ~t ~a1~a l '·c:c::\prch.a~sive" and 'Ipe=:vasive:r r.".a.nll,c:ewer.~ at1t!1or~t:y a.;:d' reC1"'i~ad i c;,e ~t~ to e)(e=-ci:s~ a li~erally da~ly superv:'s!on ove: the harveBtir:g !i o~ Indian tin'ber.· IsL.. at Z22. The Court concluded that. tr.a

sta.t~to:y scheme c:=-eaeed "" fiducia%'Y telat.!onrahip a.nd cco!erred Ju:!.adiction i:l the Court of Cla.!.lr.5 to hea..r the claims o! ens Qu.!.::~ult '!'::-ibe 4r..d Quinaulc a:l.~tt.e~s fa:: tr.or.ey damages !or: c!'1e H~e~4Caqemen~ o! thei~ forest by the S!A. !t held:

tAl fiduciary relat!c~ah~p r.ece!sar~lY a:ises when t.ha Gover::.me'nc assumes suc:~ elabo:oaI: ~ caat~ol over fo:eSt9 ar.~ property belonging :~ Indians. ALl of th~ r.ee~ssarf el~~Q~ta cf & co~cd-law t~JSt ~re p~QgQnt: a t=USCS6 (the Uni.ted Sta:e,) I a bgr..~f!.c!.;.::y (t~e I:lci!lr:. a~lot :..9 it !, ar.d a ::"~&C corpus (t:e t!.l:lbe::- , la~ca, add ~~~dg). (Wihere t~e Fedar~! Gcvo:n:r.e1:.: l:a.kes at" !;;:;& CQDt"'C1 pv 9t:i2Firi!e1QO ova~ cril:al &':\O:!.!.ea O~ p:"c~lIrt::!eB, the !id.~::::'a:y

, : h" •• -.' ~. rc.at_c~. ~p =a~a~_~ ex_sta w_t~ re~pec: ~~

a\!:~ '~a::1e5 c:' propC~t;'~g !~:l!e:s:s CC~~=88~ ~as ~:o",!.cec! Qt~c:=-"'iae) e".·e;: ~l-.o..:gh ::o~~.!:-; !.S sa.!.-i e.!Q:'e.a:ily !.!l t.he aat.!lc:oiz;:":q r;r \:~e.:'ly1r.g 5~a~~cc CO~ o:~sr ~~i.~~ental dccu~enc} aboue a t.:".!st t\:=~, ot." a tru8t.· o· "00: . 'fiduc:!.a:o'l c:or.r.ec::ion.

~y' .. Vi ~ a~ 125. (Cita~1cns and tooc~o~es o~it~edi (amptaSi& added).

~he ~~CA bears none of the ea~r~s tha~ the Co~:t iden~iEiQd i~ "- .. C~C31· as c::.;a.ting f id\!ciary responQilli! 1 t i.~S1 !n th-u Oni ted Sta.::.e8. !n M1 tg he 11 , the Cou:!'t raliQd il:1. G'.a.j c::: pa::'t upcr. the &Iundisput.ed exis1:Qnca c:f a. ge:l.lilriiLl t:rulile 1:e:'a.t:!onllhi'D ~etw-eQn the Unit-ad Staee.e an~ the Ind1a~ peoole. o in cc.:cluding £~~ ~~e Uniced StA~es had a.ssw::ec1 & tr:us~ ,respor.Bib:l.liey in lranag1ny ~he Quinault foras:=._ !d... at. 225. There is I Bowever I r..c Ell:=:l': relat_cr.Bh!p between the United States and the nat.iva Hawaiians nude:- t.~e H."\CA. t!le Hawaii Orgo.r.ic Ace of 1900, cbe J~iAt aBsolution a: 3qly 7, lagS, or any o~er

~ Jfi , ~

efJ . 6: .... on '0 ""~'"l 'eu " ~. ~.

.. rit':· I;~" !ecr::--' <ft.~.

113"''t 1·· .. ·""· ~ ... -. _. .

~ •• 1. .t: J \'!& .~

_~:r".! .. . ~c:ti~: ... :.~ =O~~* ..

. !.esal sot::-C:.e. 33. Stat. 141; 30 Sta.t. 50. Th~re ia no spec:.a.l relAtionship bec~een ~~ enited S~ataD'ar.d t~e native Hawaiians beca.use, aa che tri:'lth Ci%cuit has helc!, tha ut!ve ·Ha.waiians ce not cahst.i.t\\~e CIa. d!st.:"nct sovere:Lgnty set apa::-t by :listorical cu:d eth~clogical bQu~da~1es.p ~rice y. srac a pf uAWlii. 76~ :.24 523, 621 (9tb Cir" 1985', ~. denied, 474 U.s. tOSS (19861" This is

'ac ~he hea~t at t~e un!que '5Qva~n~·ec·g~~e~~GD~ ~e~ar-1oneh1p !::t:u:w,een ~8 Jn1t.e4 Stac.ee and. the tr.dlan c.r1l':ee e.l".at Is 1:1:8 bas1s ot the unice~ SCates reapon8ibi~i~ies'~=wa=da IC~!~s. 8Q~ ~

It'' Tnis· ca.se GI.Z'l!a:: rsacha4 the COU2:l; 1:'1 Unit.s4.St:::tS is v MitSh9~, 435 U.S. 535 (19S0) (Mitchel! I).

9

....

i .~

, , , , .

01/25/05 11m 15:40 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWAITAN AFFAIRS fa] 009

~---------------~M ! .,- . Jan. 25 2005 01: 1:3PM P10

. ~ · i

. ' ~ .. ' ..

:-': .. . . , .. ~ .... . .. .Ai

~: , r-~.

fl. s· -. "

!e

·X I I, 'l.Q..., t:\:.at.ee.j!;· Zr; t:.:s.: 'c!eC::!.:I!O:l, t.h.e COU;:\: !our.r! that. various i ci. .... J)er rna=a.ge~e:;.c o:.atuces ga."re the Burea\; Q: India.n ~t ~a1~a l '·c:c::\prch.a~sive" and 'Ipe=:vasive:r r.".a.nll,c:ewer.~ at1t!1or~t:y a.;:d' reC1"'i~ad i c;,e ~t~ to e)(e=-ci:s~ a li~erally da~ly superv:'s!on ove: the harveBtir:g !i o~ Indian tin'ber.· IsL.. at Z22. The Court concluded that. tr.a

sta.t~to:y scheme c:=-eaeed "" fiducia%'Y telat.!onrahip a.nd cco!erred Ju:!.adiction i:l the Court of Cla.!.lr.5 to hea..r the claims o! ens Qu.!.::~ult '!'::-ibe 4r..d Quinaulc a:l.~tt.e~s fa:: tr.or.ey damages !or: c!'1e H~e~4Caqemen~ o! thei~ forest by the S!A. !t held:

tAl fiduciary relat!c~ah~p r.ece!sar~lY a:ises when t.ha Gover::.me'nc assumes suc:~ elabo:oaI: ~ caat~ol over fo:eSt9 ar.~ property belonging :~ Indians. ALl of th~ r.ee~ssarf el~~Q~ta cf & co~cd-law t~JSt ~re p~QgQnt: a t=USCS6 (the Uni.ted Sta:e,) I a bgr..~f!.c!.;.::y (t~e I:lci!lr:. a~lot :..9 it !, ar.d a ::"~&C corpus (t:e t!.l:lbe::- , la~ca, add ~~~dg). (Wihere t~e Fedar~! Gcvo:n:r.e1:.: l:a.kes at" !;;:;& CQDt"'C1 pv 9t:i2Firi!e1QO ova~ cril:al &':\O:!.!.ea O~ p:"c~lIrt::!eB, the !id.~::::'a:y

, : h" •• -.' ~. rc.at_c~. ~p =a~a~_~ ex_sta w_t~ re~pec: ~~

a\!:~ '~a::1e5 c:' propC~t;'~g !~:l!e:s:s CC~~=88~ ~as ~:o",!.cec! Qt~c:=-"'iae) e".·e;: ~l-.o..:gh ::o~~.!:-; !.S sa.!.-i e.!Q:'e.a:ily !.!l t.he aat.!lc:oiz;:":q r;r \:~e.:'ly1r.g 5~a~~cc CO~ o:~sr ~~i.~~ental dccu~enc} aboue a t.:".!st t\:=~, ot." a tru8t.· o· "00: . 'fiduc:!.a:o'l c:or.r.ec::ion.

~y' .. Vi ~ a~ 125. (Cita~1cns and tooc~o~es o~it~edi (amptaSi& added).

~he ~~CA bears none of the ea~r~s tha~ the Co~:t iden~iEiQd i~ "- .. C~C31· as c::.;a.ting f id\!ciary responQilli! 1 t i.~S1 !n th-u Oni ted Sta.::.e8. !n M1 tg he 11 , the Cou:!'t raliQd il:1. G'.a.j c::: pa::'t upcr. the &Iundisput.ed exis1:Qnca c:f a. ge:l.lilriiLl t:rulile 1:e:'a.t:!onllhi'D ~etw-eQn the Unit-ad Staee.e an~ the Ind1a~ peoole. o in cc.:cluding £~~ ~~e Uniced StA~es had a.ssw::ec1 & tr:us~ ,respor.Bib:l.liey in lranag1ny ~he Quinault foras:=._ !d... at. 225. There is I Bowever I r..c Ell:=:l': relat_cr.Bh!p between the United States and the nat.iva Hawaiians nude:- t.~e H."\CA. t!le Hawaii Orgo.r.ic Ace of 1900, cbe J~iAt aBsolution a: 3qly 7, lagS, or any o~er

~ Jfi , ~

efJ . 6: .... on '0 ""~'"l 'eu " ~. ~.

.. rit':· I;~" !ecr::--' <ft.~.

113"''t 1·· .. ·""· ~ ... -. _. .

~ •• 1. .t: J \'!& .~

_~:r".! .. . ~c:ti~: ... :.~ =O~~* ..

. !.esal sot::-C:.e. 33. Stat. 141; 30 Sta.t. 50. Th~re ia no spec:.a.l relAtionship bec~een ~~ enited S~ataD'ar.d t~e native Hawaiians beca.use, aa che tri:'lth Ci%cuit has helc!, tha ut!ve ·Ha.waiians ce not cahst.i.t\\~e CIa. d!st.:"nct sovere:Lgnty set apa::-t by :listorical cu:d eth~clogical bQu~da~1es.p ~rice y. srac a pf uAWlii. 76~ :.24 523, 621 (9tb Cir" 1985', ~. denied, 474 U.s. tOSS (19861" This is

'ac ~he hea~t at t~e un!que '5Qva~n~·ec·g~~e~~GD~ ~e~ar-1oneh1p !::t:u:w,een ~8 Jn1t.e4 Stac.ee and. the tr.dlan c.r1l':ee e.l".at Is 1:1:8 bas1s ot the unice~ SCates reapon8ibi~i~ies'~=wa=da IC~!~s. 8Q~ ~

It'' Tnis· ca.se GI.Z'l!a:: rsacha4 the COU2:l; 1:'1 Unit.s4.St:::tS is v MitSh9~, 435 U.S. 535 (19S0) (Mitchel! I).

9

....

i .~

, , , , .


III 01 0 R aFe OF RAWA1TAN AFFA1RS 01/25/05 "M11l 15:40 FAX 8085941888 ~ ___ -----------.r...---- _,J,, __ ------

"O"IM • ·I'~·I • PHONE NO. Jan. 25 2005 01:14PM ~11 ~

~Qr""!l 'J, l.(ADca ,..;, 41. 7 IJ. S. :JS (1.971l. ':'he Ur.:"tacl SCACGS ha.s r:.o relilt!cneh1p \:0 the ::ac!ve F.aVai!.C1:Z:S cS!f.!~ece:1t; f:o:n the relac!onsh.tp pe~r.a.:'~in~ De:"~ae: t.he United States and or.h~r f1r.lced Sta;:l; c~'C:.~er.s.

%h a~dit!or. t~ a !ac~ of ~ny general form of t~~ge ~aaponsib~lity. the Un:.ted States did noe A.!SlIl'ne any of the 'pervasive u. ar.d "co~::ehe::sive" re:sponaillilities towards the F.awa11an F.c=as program that. tr.e N;its;bcll 1'1" COU2:t foUlld. to be -nQCGlI.a:v aleman;s of a cQ~n~law truseA'wi~n respect to. en; gQV&r~~8r.;'9 manag~ent of tnd1an :i~~er. 463 u.s. 206, 225. As we have saara, the Sac~etary c! :he Interior bad. ee"s.in l~mit:~d a.dtl1~~sl:rativa responsibilitieu \lnder the Kr.CA rel.atfid tg the int8x-.eiu: ot ehe ger.a:c:t.l pub!.1c :Ln tea a.vailable land,. The !:sspOns1l)11itiss vested in the' Sec%eeary \1r.cl~r the RHO. d!d not. d1lter in charactel' from his ad:nir..!:5trAt.3v~ respo:lsibilit!ss unGer apy other st"tu:e. They are: not tr.e rQGPonai~i11tieB of & :rus~ee, as de11neaced ~y the ~ineh Circuit. $Ge ~# y- Ba~, 921 P.2d SSO~ ~S~. T!1e responsibilit.!es of the Te2:l:ito-ry of It..a.vaii in aQ."1l1.1liJterin9 the ~~CA vere lLkawiae neither "ccmprehensive' nor "Farvaa1ve l w~chir. t!':.e tc~s of ~iel1 Ii. In fa.ct., the HKCA put. S8Ve~e 11m1cac!ons 0:1 t.he U&~ of t.hc a.vailable lancs tor hO~lstfilad1ni' a.r..d. these llm1tat!ons by theG\Sel"~s neS'at.e any possible t!cluc1arl respol1e1tJility ir. ehe T6rr1eory. Ever. exeending into ~tatahoQ~. ehe H:~CA p:chib1ced the Commisaion frQ!Zl leasing more th~n :10, 000 ac:~ea fc~ nQIl'.es~ead!Gg ~n. &:;y t:!.ve- ye"a: period a.ad. as d.:lecuased above, raqui::ed the a.pproval o~ the Sec~etary 0: the I:eerior before t.~e ~Cm:n~olllon c~n:lcl :r..aka ae:r::a1:t lands Q.va.11able fDr home st eacU, r.g • ~erh4ps :nost impar:anc!y, ehe 1921, Act establ~shed a SlJOO~,OOC 11m1~atiot. ?n Co:nrnisaion !uud1ni from a rev01Yi~g fund that :'t1cludad ~h=ae sources o~ income, inclUdii.S the !ncc:ne dar:Lvad f~om the general leasing at cha availab.le land.a. This fu:ui wail inc.'reaaed co ~2, 00,0 1000 in 1928 and rama.ineci at t~t level uncil 195:1 when it. was raiaef1 co $5.QOO,000. °Tba f~a i= eXeeS8 oe ~ls amcUD~ vs=e to be ~de available to ~8 Terrieo:,y eor o:her pu%poses. 'l'ha Hllo. left ;:c t~e ~rrttorial legiBl&~=e the 41BCre~iQa to approp~iate a4ditional tuncU.nr.

911th 'the except.1ot~ of the five .. y.aar, 20, COO-ac:re maximum bQl!\esr.ea~ 11m1:atio~, the HHCA ga·.I11 ~a C:Qmmis.Bic~ broa.d dlso:'Gt1on in' ~l~D~ing the homesceading prog~am. ~e%a waD DO af:!zmacive . raq.Jl:'a:net on the· CammisQicn to !~aut. a ml.n1mUm, or any. Au.mb8:' of h:mt8sttad.S, and r.ocbing a.pproa.chi::ag a cc=niQQUI: to provide a ,a19ni~ica.nr; PZ'QPo:r:t!ion o~· the nacivlf K&,:"al1u pCPl11a~~Q:S with il hcanG8tea.c leaae. cor.;re~8 dirac~a~ ttQ c~~~~a,!cr. to cevalop quali~leatior. 8eanda~8 ~or l05SQQU t~ gava~ 1ta lsauL.ca 0: ncr.,ese~1d·lu&Ges. As ~!acu3y.d aarl!Gr, t~e Commis.icn ~as to r9~~~~ ~a ~ha Publ!c L&r.~8 Ccm=ieslon ena lan~s it was unabla ~o use so CbAt gece~e~ leases eould ~e aw~~ded. The ~erritor.r of HAwall ~~us was not a l;"8~ee uDder t~e ·HJtCJ\. Ra.the~, the C~Bs1"" al1d. ehu~ tho Terz:lto:y was "!QPly' ~he sue .Cla an1 ather g~f!mn\fSDt AVeJ1CY,. 10 .

I' , i ~ J . ~

f'" · fag t .i;:.ecl S; \laiia.~ waiians

I:' of tAB p.wai1 If

tianlc A, vanor c

o t~e'pub la~ds' u~d ty any at:

II The lan .a.~dS ~a)Ce ~ tl:ray ~ 4! ft&w&:Li. !ln491 of { I.ancls to . IltateS ant lep\lhlic.

JI Sec:t,ictl. It 48 t7.S t

III 01 0 R aFe OF RAWA1TAN AFFA1RS 01/25/05 "M11l 15:40 FAX 8085941888 ~ ___ -----------.r...---- _,J,, __ ------

"O"IM • ·I'~·I • PHONE NO. Jan. 25 2005 01:14PM ~11 ~

~Qr""!l 'J, l.(ADca ,..;, 41. 7 IJ. S. :JS (1.971l. ':'he Ur.:"tacl SCACGS ha.s r:.o relilt!cneh1p \:0 the ::ac!ve F.aVai!.C1:Z:S cS!f.!~ece:1t; f:o:n the relac!onsh.tp pe~r.a.:'~in~ De:"~ae: t.he United States and or.h~r f1r.lced Sta;:l; c~'C:.~er.s.

%h a~dit!or. t~ a !ac~ of ~ny general form of t~~ge ~aaponsib~lity. the Un:.ted States did noe A.!SlIl'ne any of the 'pervasive u. ar.d "co~::ehe::sive" re:sponaillilities towards the F.awa11an F.c=as program that. tr.e N;its;bcll 1'1" COU2:t foUlld. to be -nQCGlI.a:v aleman;s of a cQ~n~law truseA'wi~n respect to. en; gQV&r~~8r.;'9 manag~ent of tnd1an :i~~er. 463 u.s. 206, 225. As we have saara, the Sac~etary c! :he Interior bad. ee"s.in l~mit:~d a.dtl1~~sl:rativa responsibilitieu \lnder the Kr.CA rel.atfid tg the int8x-.eiu: ot ehe ger.a:c:t.l pub!.1c :Ln tea a.vailable land,. The !:sspOns1l)11itiss vested in the' Sec%eeary \1r.cl~r the RHO. d!d not. d1lter in charactel' from his ad:nir..!:5trAt.3v~ respo:lsibilit!ss unGer apy other st"tu:e. They are: not tr.e rQGPonai~i11tieB of & :rus~ee, as de11neaced ~y the ~ineh Circuit. $Ge ~# y- Ba~, 921 P.2d SSO~ ~S~. T!1e responsibilit.!es of the Te2:l:ito-ry of It..a.vaii in aQ."1l1.1liJterin9 the ~~CA vere lLkawiae neither "ccmprehensive' nor "Farvaa1ve l w~chir. t!':.e tc~s of ~iel1 Ii. In fa.ct., the HKCA put. S8Ve~e 11m1cac!ons 0:1 t.he U&~ of t.hc a.vailable lancs tor hO~lstfilad1ni' a.r..d. these llm1tat!ons by theG\Sel"~s neS'at.e any possible t!cluc1arl respol1e1tJility ir. ehe T6rr1eory. Ever. exeending into ~tatahoQ~. ehe H:~CA p:chib1ced the Commisaion frQ!Zl leasing more th~n :10, 000 ac:~ea fc~ nQIl'.es~ead!Gg ~n. &:;y t:!.ve- ye"a: period a.ad. as d.:lecuased above, raqui::ed the a.pproval o~ the Sec~etary 0: the I:eerior before t.~e ~Cm:n~olllon c~n:lcl :r..aka ae:r::a1:t lands Q.va.11able fDr home st eacU, r.g • ~erh4ps :nost impar:anc!y, ehe 1921, Act establ~shed a SlJOO~,OOC 11m1~atiot. ?n Co:nrnisaion !uud1ni from a rev01Yi~g fund that :'t1cludad ~h=ae sources o~ income, inclUdii.S the !ncc:ne dar:Lvad f~om the general leasing at cha availab.le land.a. This fu:ui wail inc.'reaaed co ~2, 00,0 1000 in 1928 and rama.ineci at t~t level uncil 195:1 when it. was raiaef1 co $5.QOO,000. °Tba f~a i= eXeeS8 oe ~ls amcUD~ vs=e to be ~de available to ~8 Terrieo:,y eor o:her pu%poses. 'l'ha Hllo. left ;:c t~e ~rrttorial legiBl&~=e the 41BCre~iQa to approp~iate a4ditional tuncU.nr.

911th 'the except.1ot~ of the five .. y.aar, 20, COO-ac:re maximum bQl!\esr.ea~ 11m1:atio~, the HHCA ga·.I11 ~a C:Qmmis.Bic~ broa.d dlso:'Gt1on in' ~l~D~ing the homesceading prog~am. ~e%a waD DO af:!zmacive . raq.Jl:'a:net on the· CammisQicn to !~aut. a ml.n1mUm, or any. Au.mb8:' of h:mt8sttad.S, and r.ocbing a.pproa.chi::ag a cc=niQQUI: to provide a ,a19ni~ica.nr; PZ'QPo:r:t!ion o~· the nacivlf K&,:"al1u pCPl11a~~Q:S with il hcanG8tea.c leaae. cor.;re~8 dirac~a~ ttQ c~~~~a,!cr. to cevalop quali~leatior. 8eanda~8 ~or l05SQQU t~ gava~ 1ta lsauL.ca 0: ncr.,ese~1d·lu&Ges. As ~!acu3y.d aarl!Gr, t~e Commis.icn ~as to r9~~~~ ~a ~ha Publ!c L&r.~8 Ccm=ieslon ena lan~s it was unabla ~o use so CbAt gece~e~ leases eould ~e aw~~ded. The ~erritor.r of HAwall ~~us was not a l;"8~ee uDder t~e ·HJtCJ\. Ra.the~, the C~Bs1"" al1d. ehu~ tho Terz:lto:y was "!QPly' ~he sue .Cla an1 ather g~f!mn\fSDt AVeJ1CY,. 10 .

I' , i ~ J . ~

f'" · fag t .i;:.ecl S; \laiia.~ waiians

I:' of tAB p.wai1 If

tianlc A, vanor c

o t~e'pub la~ds' u~d ty any at:

II The lan .a.~dS ~a)Ce ~ tl:ray ~ 4! ft&w&:Li. !ln491 of { I.ancls to . IltateS ant lep\lhlic.

JI Sec:t,ictl. It 48 t7.S t


Ol / 2 ;i / 05 l'IfR l!i :4 1 FAX R08!i941R8R OFe or HAifA 11 AN .~rpA TRS ~Oll

L

PHONE NO. : .sOL1Vl"JUK

Jan. 25 2005 01: 15Fl'1 P12 ...

~t":!orrning ite ~tllt\ltory tunction. Iiit~out more, euch <iucies cannot,

~ ehe~elve~, t=aootorm · the governmene i~eo a trustee. r.o ~

_

lip:c .. ~ addition to the lack 0: ... cruet"", there ia under the HHO>. no

:w= ~~ f.n.e!1cia~ .... i~h equitable olo'ller!lhip of the proparty .:r.llege<i to b"

;.: ject to a crUllt. Truaceeahip respon!1bilitiea requJ.:re a

. r.":1cia~ wiCh equitable title to the property, ~, Mitchell It

:Y'., ~J: ,463 II.S. 206, 225. In Mitchell n, the Court found the 1855

~~:.:i: · aty o! olympia, an 1873 Executive Order, and the· General ~lotment

,,,' ::, Z5 U.S.::. 348, "acabliahed a. cruet corpus by g-iving co t:he

. a, ' dians title in the Ouina.ult R.aservation. In 19:24, the Supreme

ot . ru~~ I~~<i o::c.ered t:he BrA to allo~ ene lte"Qrvat:ior.:. llni"!:ed sr;"tes

Iry . ~, " Uj~ U.S. 4~6 (19:<4). 7l:e I'!:-!CA, in con~ras~, escablished

;~8 .' . ~it~.er a C:=USt cO:pUIJ nor beneficial o"'nexs. Th"re "'as, and" ig.

~;; r ~i~le t:J ~he :.vaila.bla lands in the nati.ve Ha·.aii."''1s .U'

:ve-, d

-r. " -- ro. f'l9 ti tl e to the aVil.i.lalJle la!!~8 ur..clir t:.l':~ F.~CJ\ :-Qr..2-!.~~ :'r.. t.hi3

:t~.: ~itad S;;a.tBS . Co:-:graaB :-stainac the p.Dw"r to r~",cve la.:!de from ~he ~WI1~!.a.~ l'.o;;lee prcgram w1.l:hout v~ola~l.n9" any ' r~9'hts of tr.s nat~'1e

. !.~aiian9' Tl",e Un:!.ced S ta~ee also reserved the ri'3h~ under secci-on

:he . ' of the !lawaii. Ol:'g.mic Act. to ta)ta any cf. :ha puhlic lands of

lin .-~ wai.i • fo:: the uses and pu::;>.oses of the Unit.ed Statel!·. UI T~e

"'8 : ganic: Ac:t, spet:ific:IIl'ly autho=ized Congress, the Presider.t cr· t:'le

:a· .:; t vernor of R .... w ... U. t~ exerc:iae th~3 autho:dty, 'I1'." pr=i3ion applied

ir. ·:= the p\lblic laz:ds ot Hawaii, including those lIet aside ... e availu,le

:ee: ·· ei1rls' unde:: the H3CA. Sect:ion 91 wa.s not rCl!?saled by c1'e MeA O~

l!1 g r any ocher la\Ol prior to S ~at;ehQcd . .

:he I :ld lat r~------------------on... f The lands tr.at becrur.e the available la:l<iB were include<! in the

:es land; taken from the Rep\ll:llic of Ha'olaii by the 1898 Joint Resolution,

ot·.· jIld ell":" "'''l:'11 to bo I.:IISQ ~or the benetit; ot all of the i!'.ha:oica.ncs

12.8', !f ;;a", .. 11 , Joint R .. ". No.5, 30 Sta.t:. 750·51 (~Sge;. Sect.ions 73

to ,'lid 91 of the Hawaii Organic Ace returned thGl l::sn"fic:iill 'I:"Q of t~g"g 'd!!:. . a.nda to the Terri!:ory ot :Hawaii. 'rhUB, at tr.e ti.a\e the Unit ,,<i'

;!t.·. Cates annexed !!awaii, it. t:ook leg"-l title to lands ' held by the

~epublic. It did r.ot take lands belonging to individuals.

ead· in'

ive' ' oC ii · ."e! ior,' es: l!c', ro.l" t .. " . . tna .c:y;

~ Section 91 of t~o:.H"'\oIaii...OJ:9'a.,i.CAc;, aa.allIended, fotmerly c:odified

~t 48 U.S.C. g 511, provided in !?srcinent part:

i I r , •

[T] he public proper.ty ceded and trar.sfer::-ed to

the Uniced States by the Republic of H~wuii,

uncer the joiot; r"50lu~ion of annexation .... ~hall r.erna1n ir.. t:he pcaaeseion, \lSt! a.nd ccn~ol

at tile 3"overiunenl: of the Tel:'rit:ory ot liawaj,1 and shall be I:I8.inca1ned, !lIanaged, =d cared tor lJy

it. at. it5 own e~ .. r."", unti'l otna:vise provid".d

for by Congr"Iil" , or ta.~eI1 for the uses and UUrooS6S of thA Unit:Qd sta~es DY direction oE

~he"Pr.B8ident 'or c~ ~~" Covernor !J! iiGlwa.i!..

11.

."

,

Ol / 2 ;i / 05 l'IfR l!i :4 1 FAX R08!i941R8R OFe or HAifA 11 AN .~rpA TRS ~Oll

L

PHONE NO. : .sOL1Vl"JUK

Jan. 25 2005 01: 15Fl'1 P12 ...

~t":!orrning ite ~tllt\ltory tunction. Iiit~out more, euch <iucies cannot,

~ ehe~elve~, t=aootorm · the governmene i~eo a trustee. r.o ~

_

lip:c .. ~ addition to the lack 0: ... cruet"", there ia under the HHO>. no

:w= ~~ f.n.e!1cia~ .... i~h equitable olo'ller!lhip of the proparty .:r.llege<i to b"

;.: ject to a crUllt. Truaceeahip respon!1bilitiea requJ.:re a

. r.":1cia~ wiCh equitable title to the property, ~, Mitchell It

:Y'., ~J: ,463 II.S. 206, 225. In Mitchell n, the Court found the 1855

~~:.:i: · aty o! olympia, an 1873 Executive Order, and the· General ~lotment

,,,' ::, Z5 U.S.::. 348, "acabliahed a. cruet corpus by g-iving co t:he

. a, ' dians title in the Ouina.ult R.aservation. In 19:24, the Supreme

ot . ru~~ I~~<i o::c.ered t:he BrA to allo~ ene lte"Qrvat:ior.:. llni"!:ed sr;"tes

Iry . ~, " Uj~ U.S. 4~6 (19:<4). 7l:e I'!:-!CA, in con~ras~, escablished

;~8 .' . ~it~.er a C:=USt cO:pUIJ nor beneficial o"'nexs. Th"re "'as, and" ig.

~;; r ~i~le t:J ~he :.vaila.bla lands in the nati.ve Ha·.aii."''1s .U'

:ve-, d

-r. " -- ro. f'l9 ti tl e to the aVil.i.lalJle la!!~8 ur..clir t:.l':~ F.~CJ\ :-Qr..2-!.~~ :'r.. t.hi3

:t~.: ~itad S;;a.tBS . Co:-:graaB :-stainac the p.Dw"r to r~",cve la.:!de from ~he ~WI1~!.a.~ l'.o;;lee prcgram w1.l:hout v~ola~l.n9" any ' r~9'hts of tr.s nat~'1e

. !.~aiian9' Tl",e Un:!.ced S ta~ee also reserved the ri'3h~ under secci-on

:he . ' of the !lawaii. Ol:'g.mic Act. to ta)ta any cf. :ha puhlic lands of

lin .-~ wai.i • fo:: the uses and pu::;>.oses of the Unit.ed Statel!·. UI T~e

"'8 : ganic: Ac:t, spet:ific:IIl'ly autho=ized Congress, the Presider.t cr· t:'le

:a· .:; t vernor of R .... w ... U. t~ exerc:iae th~3 autho:dty, 'I1'." pr=i3ion applied

ir. ·:= the p\lblic laz:ds ot Hawaii, including those lIet aside ... e availu,le

:ee: ·· ei1rls' unde:: the H3CA. Sect:ion 91 wa.s not rCl!?saled by c1'e MeA O~

l!1 g r any ocher la\Ol prior to S ~at;ehQcd . .

:he I :ld lat r~------------------on... f The lands tr.at becrur.e the available la:l<iB were include<! in the

:es land; taken from the Rep\ll:llic of Ha'olaii by the 1898 Joint Resolution,

ot·.· jIld ell":" "'''l:'11 to bo I.:IISQ ~or the benetit; ot all of the i!'.ha:oica.ncs

12.8', !f ;;a", .. 11 , Joint R .. ". No.5, 30 Sta.t:. 750·51 (~Sge;. Sect.ions 73

to ,'lid 91 of the Hawaii Organic Ace returned thGl l::sn"fic:iill 'I:"Q of t~g"g 'd!!:. . a.nda to the Terri!:ory ot :Hawaii. 'rhUB, at tr.e ti.a\e the Unit ,,<i'

;!t.·. Cates annexed !!awaii, it. t:ook leg"-l title to lands ' held by the

~epublic. It did r.ot take lands belonging to individuals.

ead· in'

ive' ' oC ii · ."e! ior,' es: l!c', ro.l" t .. " . . tna .c:y;

~ Section 91 of t~o:.H"'\oIaii...OJ:9'a.,i.CAc;, aa.allIended, fotmerly c:odified

~t 48 U.S.C. g 511, provided in !?srcinent part:

i I r , •

[T] he public proper.ty ceded and trar.sfer::-ed to

the Uniced States by the Republic of H~wuii,

uncer the joiot; r"50lu~ion of annexation .... ~hall r.erna1n ir.. t:he pcaaeseion, \lSt! a.nd ccn~ol

at tile 3"overiunenl: of the Tel:'rit:ory ot liawaj,1 and shall be I:I8.inca1ned, !lIanaged, =d cared tor lJy

it. at. it5 own e~ .. r."", unti'l otna:vise provid".d

for by Congr"Iil" , or ta.~eI1 for the uses and UUrooS6S of thA Unit:Qd sta~es DY direction oE

~he"Pr.B8ident 'or c~ ~~" Covernor !J! iiGlwa.i!..

11.

."

,


01/25/05 TIJR Hi: 41 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWATIAN AFFATRS IaJ 012

-----___ ...l...-__ --'-____ ... __

:I{JM : PHONE NO. e.:r1 Jan. 25 2005 ~1; 15PM P13 II

~l ,.~ 11 . r ,"

!!

t '" t:.

: 'I', J. I :. '-: I The 'HRCA gave the Territory of Hawaii the right to us;e the available

•• !.i j lands tor the purposes set forth in the Act. These· purposes " ~:;;:: ' in.cluded, subject eo tbe a.c:reage limitation, homestead leases; but

~:;& the RHCA authorized general leases as well. The lands remain.ed ' a.' ~,;:' subject to the right of Congress to provide f~r their use for other tI.:~, purposes, and they ",lao remai~ed eubj ec:t to the right of the S5 ~ President or the Governor eo' take them for pu~oees of the United 3t .~, States. In addition, t~a Aetornay General of robe Territory of Hawaii I1B.l~.' issued a series of opi'nions during the Territorial period giving a. me ,., rather bread scope to permissible land withdrawals fro~ ~he HHCA 9~'~ program. These opiniolls were not overturned until well a.fter :~;:. I Scacehood ~y the Actorney Genera~ of the State of Hawaii.

, It would ·be incons is tent with the righ;ts ~eserved to both, the Uni ced , () f States and the Territory, to use the ava11able la.ncls for a var1ecy

ha: :n'-I of purposes, to conclude that the ·RHCA created an equil:able ownership .he 'Pt." t interest in these lands in ehe nati"Q Ha.waiians. The SHCA makes no .va ",': i .provision for such' an. interest.. Instead, it. simply made qualified "O~' • ~ native Hawaiians eligi~le to apply for a homestead lease. The Oi".'~" t Territory was noe required to award any homesteads, .and its

~he·:,~· .. J discret10n was ltmiced by' the cei·ling sec on homestead leases 1n t. Er' .... i sec:e1oxs 204 (3) of the !mCA. Thus, an individual. native Hawa.iian ~~d~~l could only receive a property interest in a lease that he in fact

e .. , applied for and was granted. The RHCA did nat crea.te a beneficial O~ ) interest in ehe availJlble lands, a. critica.l element in establishing

~ a trust relationship. Mitchell II, 463 U.S. 206; 225. '

• t " 4:In sum, the RHCA differs markedly from the comprehensive seaeutor:y

Chel

... i schema governing the BIA's management of Indian timber which, the on ',,: l Court held in Micchell !:t, charged the United Sl:aces with t.he duties ~I1C~ , t of a common law t:2:Ustee. Unlike the situation with the Indian I !7l~~ ,t.ribes, the United Staees 'has never ass'umed a trust. rela.eionship of 181a.,":,t i a.ny kind wieh I;:he native Hawaiians, The duties the HHCA placed in Ltm; \ the Secretary of the Interior and in the 'Territory of Hawaii are not

tn&J,Io ~ those of a trustee. Price v .. Hawaii, 921 P.2d 950, 9SS. They are,· ratheJ:. those of a governmen.t a.dministra~or.. They differ in purpose from the statuces at issue 1~ Mitche11 II because they are Dot

f!.ed 'direct.eel exclusively towa:a aciJll8.nc:ing the ineerests of che native Hawaiians .. ~ey dfffer both in the nature and the scope of the

'duties they required the Secretary or the Territory ':0 pe:rfonn. Further, tbe JDlCA established neither a trust. corpus nqr a b~nefieia1 owner, hoth of which are essenl:.ia1 elemenes of a COUllllOtl law t:z:ust • .It: simply made lands available fer home9teaCliXlg on a limited baais. The United States clearlf was not a trustee for t:he Hawaiian Homes

.. p~ogram.· .

'Il:.I.. The United St~tes Did Hot: Assume a ~t Respons1l:J:f.lity For ~he Hawaiian H~s Program Upon Statehood

A. Backgrounc,i.

12

01/25/05 TIJR Hi: 41 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWATIAN AFFATRS IaJ 012

-----___ ...l...-__ --'-____ ... __

:I{JM : PHONE NO. e.:r1 Jan. 25 2005 ~1; 15PM P13 II

~l ,.~ 11 . r ,"

!!

t '" t:.

: 'I', J. I :. '-: I The 'HRCA gave the Territory of Hawaii the right to us;e the available

•• !.i j lands tor the purposes set forth in the Act. These· purposes " ~:;;:: ' in.cluded, subject eo tbe a.c:reage limitation, homestead leases; but

~:;& the RHCA authorized general leases as well. The lands remain.ed ' a.' ~,;:' subject to the right of Congress to provide f~r their use for other tI.:~, purposes, and they ",lao remai~ed eubj ec:t to the right of the S5 ~ President or the Governor eo' take them for pu~oees of the United 3t .~, States. In addition, t~a Aetornay General of robe Territory of Hawaii I1B.l~.' issued a series of opi'nions during the Territorial period giving a. me ,., rather bread scope to permissible land withdrawals fro~ ~he HHCA 9~'~ program. These opiniolls were not overturned until well a.fter :~;:. I Scacehood ~y the Actorney Genera~ of the State of Hawaii.

, It would ·be incons is tent with the righ;ts ~eserved to both, the Uni ced , () f States and the Territory, to use the ava11able la.ncls for a var1ecy

ha: :n'-I of purposes, to conclude that the ·RHCA created an equil:able ownership .he 'Pt." t interest in these lands in ehe nati"Q Ha.waiians. The SHCA makes no .va ",': i .provision for such' an. interest.. Instead, it. simply made qualified "O~' • ~ native Hawaiians eligi~le to apply for a homestead lease. The Oi".'~" t Territory was noe required to award any homesteads, .and its

~he·:,~· .. J discret10n was ltmiced by' the cei·ling sec on homestead leases 1n t. Er' .... i sec:e1oxs 204 (3) of the !mCA. Thus, an individual. native Hawa.iian ~~d~~l could only receive a property interest in a lease that he in fact

e .. , applied for and was granted. The RHCA did nat crea.te a beneficial O~ ) interest in ehe availJlble lands, a. critica.l element in establishing

~ a trust relationship. Mitchell II, 463 U.S. 206; 225. '

• t " 4:In sum, the RHCA differs markedly from the comprehensive seaeutor:y

Chel

... i schema governing the BIA's management of Indian timber which, the on ',,: l Court held in Micchell !:t, charged the United Sl:aces with t.he duties ~I1C~ , t of a common law t:2:Ustee. Unlike the situation with the Indian I !7l~~ ,t.ribes, the United Staees 'has never ass'umed a trust. rela.eionship of 181a.,":,t i a.ny kind wieh I;:he native Hawaiians, The duties the HHCA placed in Ltm; \ the Secretary of the Interior and in the 'Territory of Hawaii are not

tn&J,Io ~ those of a trustee. Price v .. Hawaii, 921 P.2d 950, 9SS. They are,· ratheJ:. those of a governmen.t a.dministra~or.. They differ in purpose from the statuces at issue 1~ Mitche11 II because they are Dot

f!.ed 'direct.eel exclusively towa:a aciJll8.nc:ing the ineerests of che native Hawaiians .. ~ey dfffer both in the nature and the scope of the

'duties they required the Secretary or the Territory ':0 pe:rfonn. Further, tbe JDlCA established neither a trust. corpus nqr a b~nefieia1 owner, hoth of which are essenl:.ia1 elemenes of a COUllllOtl law t:z:ust • .It: simply made lands available fer home9teaCliXlg on a limited baais. The United States clearlf was not a trustee for t:he Hawaiian Homes

.. p~ogram.· .

'Il:.I.. The United St~tes Did Hot: Assume a ~t Respons1l:J:f.lity For ~he Hawaiian H~s Program Upon Statehood

A. Backgrounc,i.

12


01/25/05 TIm 1il:42 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWATTAN AFFATRS IaJ 013

PHONE NO. Jan. 25 201215 01: 16PM P14

I~

I,

.. "

If.

'.

:onCJ::ess ~r.·ovidt;d {or th.e a~-:1ia8ia!:1 oC Ha.wa Li into t~e u:lion by t.~e iia-Jla.11 St.a.t~l;oou Act oC :'.a.r:ch lB, 1.959. 73 Sta.t_ 4.11; Seccic:ls 4 at}~ S of t!le: Stater-agel Ace. inc:lude p~t:":"a:!.oc.s chat apec:i(ical1y add:esH native H~w~ii4ne.

1. S~tior.;

Section Is of c~e S l:a.tanooc:1 Act:. cransflir:z:ed ati.-uinistx:a:clon ot'the IiHCA t!.:cm the "tarri t.o::y to t~e ~ea~EI o~ l!a.wal1. 13 Sta.t;. 5. Ie provides a·Cal s a cornpac~ with. the Uni.ted States rala~ing to tha Ir.a.nagemenl: ar.cl d.ispasit:'on of Che Hawa.iian hema lancs,. tbe P.awalian Homlsa

"Commies1on ~Ct, as amencled, shct-ll be a.c:.op~acl as a P~QViB:f:on of the ::oc&titut:L.cn. of $a:.d State" and. f\!::tl:.ar r~iras tba.t nall p2:oceeda a.~c! !.:-lco::\a f::c!'r. the 'available·lands.' as de~!.:ledbv ••• [t:.he RKCli.\ !hall ~e usad ~~y !~ car~'ing cut the p:ovi:io:; of saic Act." .

":"r.e .sole re5pon~ib!.1~t.y tl'\at the Un!ted. States =asa:-vec1 :'n section 4 ~5 c=r~en: :0 ce=:a!: ame~~n~~ to the ~a~ailan Homes CO~i99ion Act proposed by the Sta~e of Ravaii,a Although section ~ of t~e Sta.tehocc! i\c:~ &llcnr~ :l:e State to e!i.'lti::ate t~r: .e::-.aini:1o Secretarial :-e.aponeitJi:'.it.y, t.o "-P3J::"o".Ie la::d exc!':a.r.gc:s uz:.der sec:~i;n 2':l·4 of! the ~~CA, wi~ho~t 8eGk~n~ tr.e ccr.san: of tee U~!ted Sta=es, ~~e S~ate has .:~ot: ~.lI':.der:a;.c.ell :'0 de se.. ~ll othe~ respo::s 1.1:':'11 t !.es r:Jt ~he s~~ :it~a!"y c!! :!~e ::rlt~::"!.!lr l~ t~:e :iHc..~. a.s :i:'.9C~5 9 ed aJ:cve, we:'e !:!~~=a:~c :y :~8 HR~a~! Cor.~~!:~:~c~a: Ccr.;entior. 0: :973 ..

J.I ::..a~a.:l~ w"'as 3c:::ally a~1tted to ~~e Cnio::. Ci:l Auguat 21, !~59, upcn iai~a.."':ca of i=i1g!da:u:ial P:rOClii!i'At:'O~ 3309, 24 FQ<1. &8~. 68&8 (1959).· .. ~ O~der section , of the Statehood Act, tr.e Sta~e is entitled to ame::ld seceiat'1s 202, 21.3, 21.9, 220, ·~22, :a2~, and 2.25 of ~hG: HAC1\ a:1.d o~hc~ p'r'!lvisions· :eelatied ec ad.-ninist:-at:Lot1.w The Sta.te 1e also en~!.t:led unila:a:ally to 4menti these p:ovi.s:'o~a o~ tl-.e H:-iCA regar:liD.g the power~ and duties ot o~ficers other chan these cha:ged with the a~~nis~=atio~ af the Act i~cludir.S, apeei:i~~lly, section 20~~ parag=apn 2, sec~!on 206 and sect!on 212.

Sect:Lon i proht·bi~s :be Sta.~e e::zm itlpair:i:r.g or :educil1!:J the Ha...,a.iia.n ~pme-loaZ'l fund., the Ha.wa11a.r. bcmB·~pe.rat .. 'ng ~, or tl!a "Hawaiia.n ~ome-developmene tund. Ie precludss ths·Stata from increasing. wi chou t the con9En~ of tha Un!~ed Scates. the nencumbra:pces a\Ithor!2ed to be placed. 011 Hawaiian nct1\Q l~d.B by. afficars ather t.ban t~8e .~~~~ged with the ~~1st~acion~ of the Ace. .

. SBct:.ica. 4 al.s;o !o:r!)i.dc1 th~ Stat.e !:rom chan9'!.ng ehs "quallficacian.s of lesseee D w!.t;hcut the Conlf8Q,t of t~a U::.1.~Q4 ·Sf:ats .. ; ·ud 1c ~e<IU1%"eG c.he ·~t.a.~e to \tae ·~ha oroe:4#J·ads and inccme. t:L"om t!'lG :.vaila!,)l, l.ues ~der t.hC! P.a'~a.~ia.c. J!Q.":tes CCa--r.cU..ssior., A~~. c~ly !Q~ pu=-pcses Qf catry:1.:J.i ·cut eha provisicnQ ot that ~c:.

,-~

....

I· s

,J " ,., .. ' " :' 'L

::

01/25/05 TIm 1il:42 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWATTAN AFFATRS IaJ 013

PHONE NO. Jan. 25 201215 01: 16PM P14

I~

I,

.. "

If.

'.

:onCJ::ess ~r.·ovidt;d {or th.e a~-:1ia8ia!:1 oC Ha.wa Li into t~e u:lion by t.~e iia-Jla.11 St.a.t~l;oou Act oC :'.a.r:ch lB, 1.959. 73 Sta.t_ 4.11; Seccic:ls 4 at}~ S of t!le: Stater-agel Ace. inc:lude p~t:":"a:!.oc.s chat apec:i(ical1y add:esH native H~w~ii4ne.

1. S~tior.;

Section Is of c~e S l:a.tanooc:1 Act:. cransflir:z:ed ati.-uinistx:a:clon ot'the IiHCA t!.:cm the "tarri t.o::y to t~e ~ea~EI o~ l!a.wal1. 13 Sta.t;. 5. Ie provides a·Cal s a cornpac~ with. the Uni.ted States rala~ing to tha Ir.a.nagemenl: ar.cl d.ispasit:'on of Che Hawa.iian hema lancs,. tbe P.awalian Homlsa

"Commies1on ~Ct, as amencled, shct-ll be a.c:.op~acl as a P~QViB:f:on of the ::oc&titut:L.cn. of $a:.d State" and. f\!::tl:.ar r~iras tba.t nall p2:oceeda a.~c! !.:-lco::\a f::c!'r. the 'available·lands.' as de~!.:ledbv ••• [t:.he RKCli.\ !hall ~e usad ~~y !~ car~'ing cut the p:ovi:io:; of saic Act." .

":"r.e .sole re5pon~ib!.1~t.y tl'\at the Un!ted. States =asa:-vec1 :'n section 4 ~5 c=r~en: :0 ce=:a!: ame~~n~~ to the ~a~ailan Homes CO~i99ion Act proposed by the Sta~e of Ravaii,a Although section ~ of t~e Sta.tehocc! i\c:~ &llcnr~ :l:e State to e!i.'lti::ate t~r: .e::-.aini:1o Secretarial :-e.aponeitJi:'.it.y, t.o "-P3J::"o".Ie la::d exc!':a.r.gc:s uz:.der sec:~i;n 2':l·4 of! the ~~CA, wi~ho~t 8eGk~n~ tr.e ccr.san: of tee U~!ted Sta=es, ~~e S~ate has .:~ot: ~.lI':.der:a;.c.ell :'0 de se.. ~ll othe~ respo::s 1.1:':'11 t !.es r:Jt ~he s~~ :it~a!"y c!! :!~e ::rlt~::"!.!lr l~ t~:e :iHc..~. a.s :i:'.9C~5 9 ed aJ:cve, we:'e !:!~~=a:~c :y :~8 HR~a~! Cor.~~!:~:~c~a: Ccr.;entior. 0: :973 ..

J.I ::..a~a.:l~ w"'as 3c:::ally a~1tted to ~~e Cnio::. Ci:l Auguat 21, !~59, upcn iai~a.."':ca of i=i1g!da:u:ial P:rOClii!i'At:'O~ 3309, 24 FQ<1. &8~. 68&8 (1959).· .. ~ O~der section , of the Statehood Act, tr.e Sta~e is entitled to ame::ld seceiat'1s 202, 21.3, 21.9, 220, ·~22, :a2~, and 2.25 of ~hG: HAC1\ a:1.d o~hc~ p'r'!lvisions· :eelatied ec ad.-ninist:-at:Lot1.w The Sta.te 1e also en~!.t:led unila:a:ally to 4menti these p:ovi.s:'o~a o~ tl-.e H:-iCA regar:liD.g the power~ and duties ot o~ficers other chan these cha:ged with the a~~nis~=atio~ af the Act i~cludir.S, apeei:i~~lly, section 20~~ parag=apn 2, sec~!on 206 and sect!on 212.

Sect:Lon i proht·bi~s :be Sta.~e e::zm itlpair:i:r.g or :educil1!:J the Ha...,a.iia.n ~pme-loaZ'l fund., the Ha.wa11a.r. bcmB·~pe.rat .. 'ng ~, or tl!a "Hawaiia.n ~ome-developmene tund. Ie precludss ths·Stata from increasing. wi chou t the con9En~ of tha Un!~ed Scates. the nencumbra:pces a\Ithor!2ed to be placed. 011 Hawaiian nct1\Q l~d.B by. afficars ather t.ban t~8e .~~~~ged with the ~~1st~acion~ of the Ace. .

. SBct:.ica. 4 al.s;o !o:r!)i.dc1 th~ Stat.e !:rom chan9'!.ng ehs "quallficacian.s of lesseee D w!.t;hcut the Conlf8Q,t of t~a U::.1.~Q4 ·Sf:ats .. ; ·ud 1c ~e<IU1%"eG c.he ·~t.a.~e to \tae ·~ha oroe:4#J·ads and inccme. t:L"om t!'lG :.vaila!,)l, l.ues ~der t.hC! P.a'~a.~ia.c. J!Q.":tes CCa--r.cU..ssior., A~~. c~ly !Q~ pu=-pcses Qf catry:1.:J.i ·cut eha provisicnQ ot that ~c:.

,-~

....

I· s

,J " ,., .. ' " :' 'L

::


01/25/05 TIffi 1iJ:48 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAlVATTAN AFPATRS I4J 014

:

. ~OM : PHONE NO. Jan. 25 20aS 01: 17PM P1S

2. Sectio:l 5

'the ocb.e~ relevaGt sec::t1cn ot. the St.at~hQod Ac~, elect1o" 5, cldd~e!l8ea the t:ansfe~ of Pederal Lande ~D the neW State. 73 Stat. 5-6. Saction 5 C1;») g:rants t.he sta.ce t1.tle to the 'P\1l:)lic la.nds and prollert:y held by the Un1ce4 St~tes at the eime of H~v&ii'Q admiaslcn to the Union, wit~ the cxcapc1cn of Feder~l reaerva~iQns. LAter, in ~he Hawai! a=niDU8 Act of u~ly 12, 1960, Conf:eas amended section SIb) to make explicit tha~ tQ~ grant gf title co the Sta~e included the Hawal!an K~e ~and9. 74 Sta~. 411, 422.

Cang=ese ~ar~1ec torwllrd the "equl:;em~nt that. Saval1 usa t!1BSe former Fede:Al l~~~ for pub11c purposes in ,aec1Qn ser) o( the S~a~ahood °

Act lih:'ch, for the f:irsc c~ma. iJ':lpreesed all the publ!c l=nds (grar.ce~ to the S~ar.p. ur.der section 5(b)1:w!~h & p~11c tr~8;.

Seat.!.qr. 5 ~ e) of t·h.e Sta.c:ehccc! Act =eac!s i::. =ale..,ant par~~

Tna lands granted to ~hB State of r.awaii by subsection (b) of this section and public lands retai!:ed by the U'n.i~ed Sta.tes under subseetions (e) ar.c1 (d)· and. l~t:e%' ~onveyed to the St~te un~er subsect:ion In', tcgether with the prcc:eed"

° !rom the Bille ar .. ·:-,er dispos:'tiou af any 8uch l~ds &~d the income the~~f~cm, ehall be hale by said Se&~~ AS a pybli, t~lst (1] for the ~n~ppo=t of tho p\1l)lic schooJ.s and of the 3)ul'Jlic educational u.st:Ltutlons, (2] ~ar t.he bet=em.enc o~ t~e condit:.!c:na of native Kawai!a.ns, as dafinad in taB Hawaiia~ Hames Ccmm1sa1on Ace, 192C, as aman~ed. [31 far the develQPman~ af la:m and ho~e o\rl6larship on a.B wicesp:oe.c1 a ):)&81 .. 1 as possible [4] fer ~e making of imprqvemar.cs, and tSl ·for the provia1'on" of laJ"m fer public U&&" Such l.ands, proceeds, a.J1d income shall be ma.nagQd. -.nd. disp08 ad of tor one or ma:re .-of t.he forago:LDg pu~os liS 1~. such mann.er a.s ttle cor.sti\:uti= a.nd laws of saic! sta.te inzI.y p=ov:l.da. and t!lel~ \lsa !c%' any acher obj ac~ ahall conat.ltute a b%'each of t:"Uat ·foz- vhicb suit I"AY ~e b~ought by the United StatGS~

(l!mphl\ais added.) Congreas is abundantly capable o.t! maJti.nsr i~s in~entiQZl known through .alea:- sta.tutozy ci1:'sat1ves. As I:r.a Court.a have noted, in the vast ~ajQrity Qf legisla~1cn Ccni:esa daes mB~ wha.t :'e S·!l.YB I ~hua the 'i!:t:a~uta~ ;:Language 1s IiOnmlly the ):alll:. i!videnc:a of. CODsrrIJBu· 1~t.enc" m:ieed StaCIe y. Mf8BQu X1 Ra c1 t'tt: LlL., 278 U.S. 2S9 (19Z9], 1; c:~ar.1cy dees nQ~ e)C1.a~ t!om t.~e 1:.exc Q~ t~. ,tlL~u~e, 1t sbould. llOt: ~e ·d:lseetne~ trcm ex~:,ins"1c eV3.danca. 21CCS~QO COil CO· V. Sabhed, 488 U.S. ~05 (1988).

!.4

.0

:I , ~

I I

I 1 ~ 1

I f i .. ;

r "

.. :\,\C (;:1i: u;:a.:r. t:-ta : Cor.~ s:at. :oesp. t:SiI C

":'ew 'S~atl

We ~l of· El tJnitf ~a ~ ent:.: t~e ;:

or!:i! I

~oc~i na.vic to Uf be~e~ t!la S I!.2S2 Mic;h~ ~!ia n liber ir.ter cif!e scpa: t·hus sole CODCI!

. t::!.CR ar.d a.

7'ha m dass a-.atl&g str!c 9at r 4;ltded I.:ss.t. i;4W&!. Sta~e sect! pi: thl ~ appor

01/25/05 TIffi 1iJ:48 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAlVATTAN AFPATRS I4J 014

:

. ~OM : PHONE NO. Jan. 25 20aS 01: 17PM P1S

2. Sectio:l 5

'the ocb.e~ relevaGt sec::t1cn ot. the St.at~hQod Ac~, elect1o" 5, cldd~e!l8ea the t:ansfe~ of Pederal Lande ~D the neW State. 73 Stat. 5-6. Saction 5 C1;») g:rants t.he sta.ce t1.tle to the 'P\1l:)lic la.nds and prollert:y held by the Un1ce4 St~tes at the eime of H~v&ii'Q admiaslcn to the Union, wit~ the cxcapc1cn of Feder~l reaerva~iQns. LAter, in ~he Hawai! a=niDU8 Act of u~ly 12, 1960, Conf:eas amended section SIb) to make explicit tha~ tQ~ grant gf title co the Sta~e included the Hawal!an K~e ~and9. 74 Sta~. 411, 422.

Cang=ese ~ar~1ec torwllrd the "equl:;em~nt that. Saval1 usa t!1BSe former Fede:Al l~~~ for pub11c purposes in ,aec1Qn ser) o( the S~a~ahood °

Act lih:'ch, for the f:irsc c~ma. iJ':lpreesed all the publ!c l=nds (grar.ce~ to the S~ar.p. ur.der section 5(b)1:w!~h & p~11c tr~8;.

Seat.!.qr. 5 ~ e) of t·h.e Sta.c:ehccc! Act =eac!s i::. =ale..,ant par~~

Tna lands granted to ~hB State of r.awaii by subsection (b) of this section and public lands retai!:ed by the U'n.i~ed Sta.tes under subseetions (e) ar.c1 (d)· and. l~t:e%' ~onveyed to the St~te un~er subsect:ion In', tcgether with the prcc:eed"

° !rom the Bille ar .. ·:-,er dispos:'tiou af any 8uch l~ds &~d the income the~~f~cm, ehall be hale by said Se&~~ AS a pybli, t~lst (1] for the ~n~ppo=t of tho p\1l)lic schooJ.s and of the 3)ul'Jlic educational u.st:Ltutlons, (2] ~ar t.he bet=em.enc o~ t~e condit:.!c:na of native Kawai!a.ns, as dafinad in taB Hawaiia~ Hames Ccmm1sa1on Ace, 192C, as aman~ed. [31 far the develQPman~ af la:m and ho~e o\rl6larship on a.B wicesp:oe.c1 a ):)&81 .. 1 as possible [4] fer ~e making of imprqvemar.cs, and tSl ·for the provia1'on" of laJ"m fer public U&&" Such l.ands, proceeds, a.J1d income shall be ma.nagQd. -.nd. disp08 ad of tor one or ma:re .-of t.he forago:LDg pu~os liS 1~. such mann.er a.s ttle cor.sti\:uti= a.nd laws of saic! sta.te inzI.y p=ov:l.da. and t!lel~ \lsa !c%' any acher obj ac~ ahall conat.ltute a b%'each of t:"Uat ·foz- vhicb suit I"AY ~e b~ought by the United StatGS~

(l!mphl\ais added.) Congreas is abundantly capable o.t! maJti.nsr i~s in~entiQZl known through .alea:- sta.tutozy ci1:'sat1ves. As I:r.a Court.a have noted, in the vast ~ajQrity Qf legisla~1cn Ccni:esa daes mB~ wha.t :'e S·!l.YB I ~hua the 'i!:t:a~uta~ ;:Language 1s IiOnmlly the ):alll:. i!videnc:a of. CODsrrIJBu· 1~t.enc" m:ieed StaCIe y. Mf8BQu X1 Ra c1 t'tt: LlL., 278 U.S. 2S9 (19Z9], 1; c:~ar.1cy dees nQ~ e)C1.a~ t!om t.~e 1:.exc Q~ t~. ,tlL~u~e, 1t sbould. llOt: ~e ·d:lseetne~ trcm ex~:,ins"1c eV3.danca. 21CCS~QO COil CO· V. Sabhed, 488 U.S. ~05 (1988).

!.4

.0

:I , ~

I I

I 1 ~ 1

I f i .. ;

r "

.. :\,\C (;:1i: u;:a.:r. t:-ta : Cor.~ s:at. :oesp. t:SiI C

":'ew 'S~atl

We ~l of· El tJnitf ~a ~ ent:.: t~e ;:

or!:i! I

~oc~i na.vic to Uf be~e~ t!la S I!.2S2 Mic;h~ ~!ia n liber ir.ter cif!e scpa: t·hus sole CODCI!

. t::!.CR ar.d a.

7'ha m dass a-.atl&g str!c 9at r 4;ltded I.:ss.t. i;4W&!. Sta~e sect! pi: thl ~ appor


01/25/05 Tlffi 15:43 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWAITAN AFPAIRS IaI 015

~

=ROM :

, D . ! )

e

r d s

• t:s ~t.a

!L~

.BC. ~ .xc ::8 ..

I " l ... . . ;"

• j · i 1

.' 1t. ~

II ~

J "I

r 1 1 I:

I f 'I i

t .. I

, _ t

PHONE NO. Jan. 25 2005 ~1: 17PM P16

"::/l'" C-r. --~S9 w.: '''' ..... • •• h . • .-;.~ '"' .-::..... -!i:;e~ ::.<: eD~a.c!._c!. 0. :'~":'!.I~ :,,~_a.t:'O~J:r.:'D be:,·~eo.:: t~a

u~1te& S~aees and the nAwaii~~ paopla, i: ~o~lQ have-aor.e Be w~:h u=ambisuou~ languagQ. T~e ~aQn=Q of any such language in eieher the Sta~G~c~d ~et Qr c~o RHCA e3A only ~e ince~pret~d to maar. tr.&e Consr~ss rQ)eccad such a.:aeult. !ndeea, 1~ sac~ion 5(t) ot the. ·.s:ate!l09d . ~ct:, Cor.g:Clsa explic:.iely established a. puhlie trust: ::espo;s :.1:n.1 ~I:..y between the Sta.te and. the p'eople of Hawaii. COllg::ess f \:5. o. expllcl.t. la.nguage lc seC~!O'D 5 (f) of t.ha al:rLtuta supports the ~iew that the absence 0: spe~i!ic lA=gu~se via-a-vis c~e U~ited ·S:a.tes was intent:'cnu. .

We rllso naee c!':oa al)aence o:! anyt.hing in the lOllS' legisla.l:.ive h±~t.ory ~flHawaii Sta~ehood (0: A~~~aiQnJ Ieg1elation ~o ~u9iest t~.at the vn~ted StaCe~ w~o. to aervc·after Stat~hQod in ~he role of t~8tee . tie hAVO examined that la9:i.~lative ld.st:o~ with care, and it is c~t:'rely sile:1t:. Cls to a trusteeship role' for ~~e tTn.Lt:.ec1 Sta.t,,~ t:.:.deJ: t~~ Ea.wa.!!a.n :!omes Cortmiss!o;: Act, either' b~.fore or a.fter Sta.tehood.

'S. .t...r.s::'ys!.s

T!':ft !,ll;h!..~~ t r~:$: c!oc;tt;~"r,e t6 .a, de r !.Va.1; j,· ... ra of tha riCiU~l :got.ing C'!oc::.r1.:1e \,;;::.!e= ''''~it:h a Sta.ce cakes t:'t.!.e to lar.:!s under.!.ying ~avigabl~ wa=e~s upcr. State~cod.· It ~~~oses a.ccty upon thQ Sta~a to us: tns .l~ds fo~e~ly r.el~ by the iQdQta~ govo~r~_~t fer :ha bar.e~J.: co:! :'~Si t;:L~!.;rt.t;:.v. Tha c!oc:~x~:ua Chl=:LV6U; !::-om the aec:ision of t~8 S\lprG~ Cour~ 1n Ill~no!g Canc1"al 'St. R! 'J', Illinois, 14' U.S. lB? i1l8S2), which held that llli~QiB held ti~le t:o lands uDdet'lying Lake . Mich~gan nir. e~s~ far the peopl~ of the State that they ~~y e~jcy ~h8 n&y~sat~on of t~e waber&, carry on com~erce over them, artd tave libe~;y of fishing therein. !read f:om the' ob8t:Ut:~ion or iec~r!erence of privace.part1es l id- At 4Sl-5l. The pu~l~c trust cU.f:ers f.:om ~ fid\lcia.:y tNSt: 1::s. thAt th.ere is no ir.dividual C~ s~p&raca group w~:h equitable o~e~ship of the property. There is tb~s no t!u~y in .:he .. S.ta.tJI . ..LO wanag8 the pU:OlJ.c t.rus~ asset.s for t.he sale bena=J.t of QAa group: sucb. a. dut.y is, indeed, at ac1c:!s with r:he CQccept. Qf a public -crust far all ebe iDhalJita.:cts of a State.. S~II, ~~~r,R v. Skete at XaWKil, tar the d!tfa~a~ca betwaen a publi~ tr~9C and a fid~ciary erusc. 921 F.2d 9S0. 955-56 '9~h Clr. 1990).

~ha N1neh ci=cui~ has ha14 that aBct~on S{!) of CbQ StatQbQo~ Act ~oe. noe create & common law, 0: fiduciary trusc ~d tnac HaWaii's :n.aDCi.gement at the ~eded lands ia, the~efo:e, nat .aullj act t:.D the same :.. st:!c:eures utoosed UpOll p:ivate tr-lstees. it" co $I, sIe;" pf Hawaii • 92! r.2d 950 19th. Cir. 1990) I (al1e9'a.~~on tha.t: St.u.t:a f~!led to keep ced.d lands and'~com8 f~Qm ~ese lands separ&te.f~Qm othe~ St~te asaet.~ aiul i:J.t::ome did. ~oc a;ata a cla.iJn u~der 8.ect.ioft 5 Ct:J). 'the J:a.wo.:'1 St&ec CO\U:tlS have l1k'ewiae bee.n ::-eluc:ant. to aecoftd .. gu~ss the. State's macagem~~t of the public truae aeaoc3, ~~ Lease vhe:e the '

. section (. Hawa,!iq.D. hmnel.ands arB 1:01: ~vclved..· .~, ~. !;-,Ulte=.a, g,f .. tJe g1--I':8 gil' S"lIg&ijan aCra-lrl v. XAm,Ufik;t. 737 P.2c1 4.4S, !;e:ct;, ~an!l:d I '84 iI. S. ,.g a' (:'987J . (cou:rt wil~ not set aside legislative e.ppQr:i.o-r~T.e:; of publ!c. :tr~Bt a.aaec.a to the .Office of' JI.awa.iiar.

lS

• t 1

I ~ c.

01/25/05 Tlffi 15:43 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWAITAN AFPAIRS IaI 015

~

=ROM :

, D . ! )

e

r d s

• t:s ~t.a

!L~

.BC. ~ .xc ::8 ..

I " l ... . . ;"

• j · i 1

.' 1t. ~

II ~

J "I

r 1 1 I:

I f 'I i

t .. I

, _ t

PHONE NO. Jan. 25 2005 ~1: 17PM P16

"::/l'" C-r. --~S9 w.: '''' ..... • •• h . • .-;.~ '"' .-::..... -!i:;e~ ::.<: eD~a.c!._c!. 0. :'~":'!.I~ :,,~_a.t:'O~J:r.:'D be:,·~eo.:: t~a

u~1te& S~aees and the nAwaii~~ paopla, i: ~o~lQ have-aor.e Be w~:h u=ambisuou~ languagQ. T~e ~aQn=Q of any such language in eieher the Sta~G~c~d ~et Qr c~o RHCA e3A only ~e ince~pret~d to maar. tr.&e Consr~ss rQ)eccad such a.:aeult. !ndeea, 1~ sac~ion 5(t) ot the. ·.s:ate!l09d . ~ct:, Cor.g:Clsa explic:.iely established a. puhlie trust: ::espo;s :.1:n.1 ~I:..y between the Sta.te and. the p'eople of Hawaii. COllg::ess f \:5. o. expllcl.t. la.nguage lc seC~!O'D 5 (f) of t.ha al:rLtuta supports the ~iew that the absence 0: spe~i!ic lA=gu~se via-a-vis c~e U~ited ·S:a.tes was intent:'cnu. .

We rllso naee c!':oa al)aence o:! anyt.hing in the lOllS' legisla.l:.ive h±~t.ory ~flHawaii Sta~ehood (0: A~~~aiQnJ Ieg1elation ~o ~u9iest t~.at the vn~ted StaCe~ w~o. to aervc·after Stat~hQod in ~he role of t~8tee . tie hAVO examined that la9:i.~lative ld.st:o~ with care, and it is c~t:'rely sile:1t:. Cls to a trusteeship role' for ~~e tTn.Lt:.ec1 Sta.t,,~ t:.:.deJ: t~~ Ea.wa.!!a.n :!omes Cortmiss!o;: Act, either' b~.fore or a.fter Sta.tehood.

'S. .t...r.s::'ys!.s

T!':ft !,ll;h!..~~ t r~:$: c!oc;tt;~"r,e t6 .a, de r !.Va.1; j,· ... ra of tha riCiU~l :got.ing C'!oc::.r1.:1e \,;;::.!e= ''''~it:h a Sta.ce cakes t:'t.!.e to lar.:!s under.!.ying ~avigabl~ wa=e~s upcr. State~cod.· It ~~~oses a.ccty upon thQ Sta~a to us: tns .l~ds fo~e~ly r.el~ by the iQdQta~ govo~r~_~t fer :ha bar.e~J.: co:! :'~Si t;:L~!.;rt.t;:.v. Tha c!oc:~x~:ua Chl=:LV6U; !::-om the aec:ision of t~8 S\lprG~ Cour~ 1n Ill~no!g Canc1"al 'St. R! 'J', Illinois, 14' U.S. lB? i1l8S2), which held that llli~QiB held ti~le t:o lands uDdet'lying Lake . Mich~gan nir. e~s~ far the peopl~ of the State that they ~~y e~jcy ~h8 n&y~sat~on of t~e waber&, carry on com~erce over them, artd tave libe~;y of fishing therein. !read f:om the' ob8t:Ut:~ion or iec~r!erence of privace.part1es l id- At 4Sl-5l. The pu~l~c trust cU.f:ers f.:om ~ fid\lcia.:y tNSt: 1::s. thAt th.ere is no ir.dividual C~ s~p&raca group w~:h equitable o~e~ship of the property. There is tb~s no t!u~y in .:he .. S.ta.tJI . ..LO wanag8 the pU:OlJ.c t.rus~ asset.s for t.he sale bena=J.t of QAa group: sucb. a. dut.y is, indeed, at ac1c:!s with r:he CQccept. Qf a public -crust far all ebe iDhalJita.:cts of a State.. S~II, ~~~r,R v. Skete at XaWKil, tar the d!tfa~a~ca betwaen a publi~ tr~9C and a fid~ciary erusc. 921 F.2d 9S0. 955-56 '9~h Clr. 1990).

~ha N1neh ci=cui~ has ha14 that aBct~on S{!) of CbQ StatQbQo~ Act ~oe. noe create & common law, 0: fiduciary trusc ~d tnac HaWaii's :n.aDCi.gement at the ~eded lands ia, the~efo:e, nat .aullj act t:.D the same :.. st:!c:eures utoosed UpOll p:ivate tr-lstees. it" co $I, sIe;" pf Hawaii • 92! r.2d 950 19th. Cir. 1990) I (al1e9'a.~~on tha.t: St.u.t:a f~!led to keep ced.d lands and'~com8 f~Qm ~ese lands separ&te.f~Qm othe~ St~te asaet.~ aiul i:J.t::ome did. ~oc a;ata a cla.iJn u~der 8.ect.ioft 5 Ct:J). 'the J:a.wo.:'1 St&ec CO\U:tlS have l1k'ewiae bee.n ::-eluc:ant. to aecoftd .. gu~ss the. State's macagem~~t of the public truae aeaoc3, ~~ Lease vhe:e the '

. section (. Hawa,!iq.D. hmnel.ands arB 1:01: ~vclved..· .~, ~. !;-,Ulte=.a, g,f .. tJe g1--I':8 gil' S"lIg&ijan aCra-lrl v. XAm,Ufik;t. 737 P.2c1 4.4S, !;e:ct;, ~an!l:d I '84 iI. S. ,.g a' (:'987J . (cou:rt wil~ not set aside legislative e.ppQr:i.o-r~T.e:; of publ!c. :tr~Bt a.aaec.a to the .Office of' JI.awa.iiar.

lS

• t 1

I ~ c.


01/25/05 TIm 15:44 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF RAWATTAN AFPATRS IaJ 016

• !ROM : PHONE NO. Jan. 25 2005 01: 18PM P17

Sect1cn S tf) a!.lows the state co uee the F~lic tmst assete tor five Jcat~c! pcrpcses r (1) aupport c~ pUblic school" and. public ed",ca.t:ic;n~a.l iDstlt~tians, (2) the betterment of the condition of ·nac1va Hawaiians, as defined in the HKCA, (3) tr.e widespread develQpment of ta.~ and ho~~ owr.er~hip, (4) public 1~prQVementB, a~d (5l che prevision cf lar..d fer p~11c use. The choice amo!lg' tbe rive puhlic trust purposea ~a! reserved exclusively tor Hawaii ~o ma~e, w1th sec;tion S (e, 9te.~lng chac It (sl uch lands, prci:esc!s and income shall be trAua.ged and disposed or fo:" or-a or IDo::-e ct the foregoing PU2:pOSlGQ a8 ehe eonetitu~!on ar.d laws Qt said Stace may prcvide. oU

Section 5.Cf) est.ablishes a public: t't1.lst becweer. Ha.wa.!i and all :he pec~lg· ot V.awai:!.. It a.160 authorizes the UnitoQ S::ates to bri:rig an enfor~ement action a~&inse the Stae; if t~8 Sta:e usee ~he oublic cruse as~a~s fer purposes OU~3~Cg ~he sc~pa of t~e statu~e,· Tnis right to sue t~e St~te is noe exolusive to cha Or.~ted S~a~es and i8 s1~1:a~ eo ot~Qr enforcement actions broughc by ~he U~ited 9ta~e~ to Qnfcrc~ m1r!ad sta~~~Qs. ~~e e~£orcemen~ ~ower of ehe rede~~l Ccva:~~~nc dc~s ~o~ by !tsel~ esteblish any spec±al tru~e :te ' III" l O"D~':· -W"! -"",. "'9 'v r- .. :"J.~'" -.; ~D.-I.:a ~ J .. ~o " .... -~h C1' -cui" • .:10'-_ ...... _51. _ ........ 4IiIoW ! 9&'=7 -n. ' ......... ~I '--. .,_ •• -... .. ...

eha.~a.eter:'=ad :.~!.a tee-e.ral ::-espons:.:'i.l !.ty as a. .. ~ederAl ba;:;-:'e~ beyo~d wh:'cr. t~c·Sta.ta ca.r.Dot 9'0 i.~ it~ Ac:f:.!.r.:'3t.:"at.~Qi3. o~ t~9 ceded "J..ar.~s. h !ill'. ad 950, S5S. '~e cwrc 4'enc ..,n to -n'C'te thia J federal barriaru did :lot c::cnf"r ~ common la.w truat respons1~ill~y en either the 7eder~1 Government or the seace:

• • . :l ~ would. be e::-or co ~eaa ehe wot'd.s· dpublie trust· to ra~1re that the'~~aee adap~ a~ypart.10\!1ar mechod and. fo:an of mauageu\Gnc fc:r: t.he cedeCl lands. All t,,:op0l"ty hQ1d by a. state is held upon ~ 'pul:)l!c C~8t, I These wo~cla al~Q do not damar.d that·a atatq deal witb lts proper~y in ~y pa~t1cUlar manner eVQ4 i!, as a ",..1Lt~er of prudeQce, the people uBually require

W TheQe section S(f) P~gvi8icn8 allowin~ the use of the 8ee~!on !i Cb) .lands to:: !iv. specified V~"O.aeu do not· SLpply to tbe Hawaiian Heme' La.nc!. _re8erv~4 tor pur:pQses of the r:Ha in sec:tion.-·4 of the State-head. AC:1:. Price v. !kakft, 928 ' .. 2d 824 r S2S n.1 (9th ~1r. 19'0). l~s~ead, sec~tor. ·se!) allows t~e Stace to use ocher public la.nc!s fo: ~he va:1ety o! pw,li.c p:.n~pr::s81S aet for.1:h in t~e Ac~. 'rhea Stace ~~08a ta l~lemeut· ~he pUbl1e. t~SC in· CQttcae~an w~~ ehe s~ction s(f) pU%PQSS at leba be~~a~eAc at ~~e ~Dndt~icn o~ ~a~1ve PAvaiians" b~( esr:ahli~hi.ng, du~1~g :I.~s const:a.tut:loaal caa.vent:Lon t?t ·197·8. :be O~.!lca at Hawaiian A!f~r!il. .

:.

. .

! j t 92

~1. ::l':, let liS

~c' A3J !.9' \:al t-· ....

sea

tin: la.:1' ret!\;

u: :.: a~gt

se~~

iLi.!!.. i39 a.c:~ Y..c....l l.Hi: of :

01/25/05 TIm 15:44 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF RAWATTAN AFPATRS IaJ 016

• !ROM : PHONE NO. Jan. 25 2005 01: 18PM P17

Sect1cn S tf) a!.lows the state co uee the F~lic tmst assete tor five Jcat~c! pcrpcses r (1) aupport c~ pUblic school" and. public ed",ca.t:ic;n~a.l iDstlt~tians, (2) the betterment of the condition of ·nac1va Hawaiians, as defined in the HKCA, (3) tr.e widespread develQpment of ta.~ and ho~~ owr.er~hip, (4) public 1~prQVementB, a~d (5l che prevision cf lar..d fer p~11c use. The choice amo!lg' tbe rive puhlic trust purposea ~a! reserved exclusively tor Hawaii ~o ma~e, w1th sec;tion S (e, 9te.~lng chac It (sl uch lands, prci:esc!s and income shall be trAua.ged and disposed or fo:" or-a or IDo::-e ct the foregoing PU2:pOSlGQ a8 ehe eonetitu~!on ar.d laws Qt said Stace may prcvide. oU

Section 5.Cf) est.ablishes a public: t't1.lst becweer. Ha.wa.!i and all :he pec~lg· ot V.awai:!.. It a.160 authorizes the UnitoQ S::ates to bri:rig an enfor~ement action a~&inse the Stae; if t~8 Sta:e usee ~he oublic cruse as~a~s fer purposes OU~3~Cg ~he sc~pa of t~e statu~e,· Tnis right to sue t~e St~te is noe exolusive to cha Or.~ted S~a~es and i8 s1~1:a~ eo ot~Qr enforcement actions broughc by ~he U~ited 9ta~e~ to Qnfcrc~ m1r!ad sta~~~Qs. ~~e e~£orcemen~ ~ower of ehe rede~~l Ccva:~~~nc dc~s ~o~ by !tsel~ esteblish any spec±al tru~e :te ' III" l O"D~':· -W"! -"",. "'9 'v r- .. :"J.~'" -.; ~D.-I.:a ~ J .. ~o " .... -~h C1' -cui" • .:10'-_ ...... _51. _ ........ 4IiIoW ! 9&'=7 -n. ' ......... ~I '--. .,_ •• -... .. ...

eha.~a.eter:'=ad :.~!.a tee-e.ral ::-espons:.:'i.l !.ty as a. .. ~ederAl ba;:;-:'e~ beyo~d wh:'cr. t~c·Sta.ta ca.r.Dot 9'0 i.~ it~ Ac:f:.!.r.:'3t.:"at.~Qi3. o~ t~9 ceded "J..ar.~s. h !ill'. ad 950, S5S. '~e cwrc 4'enc ..,n to -n'C'te thia J federal barriaru did :lot c::cnf"r ~ common la.w truat respons1~ill~y en either the 7eder~1 Government or the seace:

• • . :l ~ would. be e::-or co ~eaa ehe wot'd.s· dpublie trust· to ra~1re that the'~~aee adap~ a~ypart.10\!1ar mechod and. fo:an of mauageu\Gnc fc:r: t.he cedeCl lands. All t,,:op0l"ty hQ1d by a. state is held upon ~ 'pul:)l!c C~8t, I These wo~cla al~Q do not damar.d that·a atatq deal witb lts proper~y in ~y pa~t1cUlar manner eVQ4 i!, as a ",..1Lt~er of prudeQce, the people uBually require

W TheQe section S(f) P~gvi8icn8 allowin~ the use of the 8ee~!on !i Cb) .lands to:: !iv. specified V~"O.aeu do not· SLpply to tbe Hawaiian Heme' La.nc!. _re8erv~4 tor pur:pQses of the r:Ha in sec:tion.-·4 of the State-head. AC:1:. Price v. !kakft, 928 ' .. 2d 824 r S2S n.1 (9th ~1r. 19'0). l~s~ead, sec~tor. ·se!) allows t~e Stace to use ocher public la.nc!s fo: ~he va:1ety o! pw,li.c p:.n~pr::s81S aet for.1:h in t~e Ac~. 'rhea Stace ~~08a ta l~lemeut· ~he pUbl1e. t~SC in· CQttcae~an w~~ ehe s~ction s(f) pU%PQSS at leba be~~a~eAc at ~~e ~Dndt~icn o~ ~a~1ve PAvaiians" b~( esr:ahli~hi.ng, du~1~g :I.~s const:a.tut:loaal caa.vent:Lon t?t ·197·8. :be O~.!lca at Hawaiian A!f~r!il. .

:.

. .

! j t 92

~1. ::l':, let liS

~c' A3J !.9' \:al t-· ....

sea

tin: la.:1' ret!\;

u: :.: a~gt

se~~

iLi.!!.. i39 a.c:~ Y..c....l l.Hi: of :


01/25/05 TIJR 1 G: 45 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWAITAN AFFAIRS tal 017

. :'ROM

:-

•

le .ka

.'C~ ~al .. va mt :be Lie LCh 11.3. iQS

::he ar.

lie his . is :ea ral' \l~~

uJ.t 'ier ded .ra.l ~her

1:1on l.ian the

Cu'. .~11c

me . the ~~1~e :Ill of

.~

• I. f ., , ~ ;.

! z . , ~ .

----_____ ... 1

PHCNE NO. Jan. 25 2aBS 01: 19PM P1S

a clcee accour.~~n~ by their g':!c!a!~. These wo:c1s betoken tr-e Stli:e' 8 du':y to avoid ~4V:':1t.:'!l.g f::Ca"'=' 8ection 5 (f) 's PUrpOSII. 'rh.ay. betoke~ not~~n~ =are.

S2l ~.2d 950, 955.W

S!~ce &t~aini~g Sta~e~ood in 1959, Hawaii ~~B had :ull ~o~t~al of ~~c R~~aiia~ r.c""e~ p~ogram ~n~er sectior. ~ 0: t~o Sta:ehood A+t leAvici the United States with wha~ the ~inth Ci~cu~t bas deac=~~cd as "or..i.1 a. !fo::&!!W~~t. C.a::.54nt.:'a.l supe='l'isa::y role l:.--;de= ebe Ad:n1ssio:l Ac: rat~er thar. the role a: trustee.' ~~Jk~~a~PaMa~w' CQCmL~fLX ~~,9'n v. G?"il.J~il" Gomes t:graiBfJi.on, SQS i'.2d121~, 1224 n.7 (9th.clr. 1978), .s:.~ s:.§j1 iAd, t44 U.S. 826 (1979). 'l'he C:l\!rc. d!at;i.:1gu!~llQ4 cases !~vo:vi:l= l~:;ds held. i.n 1:t:U8t hy the United States tor !nd!.a~ t:-!~"s: .

T~e faet~41 ci=cumstances ur.de~lyin9 ~~e licQ cf case~ c~ta~lis~iDg ~h!a dcct=!~m gene=ally i~vo!v~ ~Ative' A~r!~an8. 4~ ol~~:t!:rB. su~~~ '" II r:a tft or cehe.: t!r.~ity ~c; p~c"c~c~ ;l"ioir r!g!\t8 in t=ust p~apertYt whQ~Q the Cn!ta4 Sca~es ie t~stae of the l&r.ca. In ~h!9 c~se. hc~eyer, the st:&I:Q ia l:ha trus~ee. 'l"he nati·/B Ha.wai.ia.ns a~& a~:a=pting to. aUe che·8ta~e for b~eac~ of ;r.a Q tat a' a trus t cb::'i9'~t"ions, and the L'b:Lted Stoa.t-a·s bae tte oppo=,e\:l\!t:l to sua f.!la "tate only 0::' ::he basia of a right ~eserved by Cou5'ress it1 c~e s~a~e's k1~~33ion ~ct. Th~ Uni~ed.StatQg r~s o::.ly " ~cme~r.at ~a~S@J:t!a.:' 6\1perviso:y rol e ~~~~~ :hc ~~iS8!Q~ Ace, rat~Q= tha~ cr.a role 0: :::-.. UJ,:ce.

sse r.3d L216. ~224 :.7. .'

tint::.l r.awa!.! deci(!es aCher.l1ae. the Secre~ary w1!l continu~ t.o rev!.ew la!le. IlXc~anges \mCler aectf.cm 204 of the miCA. Thi:s 1:1 :be o:uy rQrna!~i~g a~atu~ory du~y of the Sec~ct&ry at ~e In~erio:.

14: !;: =-.ec:e:ll: dac:i&icDSI. the ~U.n~h Circuit MEi ;oej ec:te~ juri6C!1ct.J.o!1a~ are~~"nt8 ~de by Ka~a1i 1n auits broughe by nac1vQ Xawai!ana to sec:.u:H o:eos"Clllc::.ivu relief in the tiJlI.lorc.mcaut: o! Slsc~:Lon S {f J • iA.e.. e; 1'1" tciAUki.ha.- Panaewa CgmmUli, l ty Ass' n V. Ha'l1i11an Hpmag Cwr;d·Igicm4. il9 i.2d 1467 {9th eir., 1984) (:.tiva Hawa~ians ma~ ~a~ta1~·an a.c:icn \!:lde~ C2 U.S.C. § 1983 to 8~!orce the-scatahoQd. ·Ac:):· nS1gah1: y. felty, 921 i'.2d 827 (9t::z Ci::., 1990). ~ depied" 90 J1.S.L.W. 3365 (Oca:obe:"' S, 1"9'1.) ':::a~ive ~wa1.1a~9, a~ pocan~iZll b,u:a.f!c:i.ar1ea a~ ~he publi.c t ':'\lac. ba~e sr.a:ccSing to. enfc;-ce Bect!~n S tf! . J

, ". -,

.....

I ~ 1

01/25/05 TIJR 1 G: 45 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWAITAN AFFAIRS tal 017

. :'ROM

:-

•

le .ka

.'C~ ~al .. va mt :be Lie LCh 11.3. iQS

::he ar.

lie his . is :ea ral' \l~~

uJ.t 'ier ded .ra.l ~her

1:1on l.ian the

Cu'. .~11c

me . the ~~1~e :Ill of

.~

• I. f ., , ~ ;.

! z . , ~ .

----_____ ... 1

PHCNE NO. Jan. 25 2aBS 01: 19PM P1S

a clcee accour.~~n~ by their g':!c!a!~. These wo:c1s betoken tr-e Stli:e' 8 du':y to avoid ~4V:':1t.:'!l.g f::Ca"'=' 8ection 5 (f) 's PUrpOSII. 'rh.ay. betoke~ not~~n~ =are.

S2l ~.2d 950, 955.W

S!~ce &t~aini~g Sta~e~ood in 1959, Hawaii ~~B had :ull ~o~t~al of ~~c R~~aiia~ r.c""e~ p~ogram ~n~er sectior. ~ 0: t~o Sta:ehood A+t leAvici the United States with wha~ the ~inth Ci~cu~t bas deac=~~cd as "or..i.1 a. !fo::&!!W~~t. C.a::.54nt.:'a.l supe='l'isa::y role l:.--;de= ebe Ad:n1ssio:l Ac: rat~er thar. the role a: trustee.' ~~Jk~~a~PaMa~w' CQCmL~fLX ~~,9'n v. G?"il.J~il" Gomes t:graiBfJi.on, SQS i'.2d121~, 1224 n.7 (9th.clr. 1978), .s:.~ s:.§j1 iAd, t44 U.S. 826 (1979). 'l'he C:l\!rc. d!at;i.:1gu!~llQ4 cases !~vo:vi:l= l~:;ds held. i.n 1:t:U8t hy the United States tor !nd!.a~ t:-!~"s: .

T~e faet~41 ci=cumstances ur.de~lyin9 ~~e licQ cf case~ c~ta~lis~iDg ~h!a dcct=!~m gene=ally i~vo!v~ ~Ative' A~r!~an8. 4~ ol~~:t!:rB. su~~~ '" II r:a tft or cehe.: t!r.~ity ~c; p~c"c~c~ ;l"ioir r!g!\t8 in t=ust p~apertYt whQ~Q the Cn!ta4 Sca~es ie t~stae of the l&r.ca. In ~h!9 c~se. hc~eyer, the st:&I:Q ia l:ha trus~ee. 'l"he nati·/B Ha.wai.ia.ns a~& a~:a=pting to. aUe che·8ta~e for b~eac~ of ;r.a Q tat a' a trus t cb::'i9'~t"ions, and the L'b:Lted Stoa.t-a·s bae tte oppo=,e\:l\!t:l to sua f.!la "tate only 0::' ::he basia of a right ~eserved by Cou5'ress it1 c~e s~a~e's k1~~33ion ~ct. Th~ Uni~ed.StatQg r~s o::.ly " ~cme~r.at ~a~S@J:t!a.:' 6\1perviso:y rol e ~~~~~ :hc ~~iS8!Q~ Ace, rat~Q= tha~ cr.a role 0: :::-.. UJ,:ce.

sse r.3d L216. ~224 :.7. .'

tint::.l r.awa!.! deci(!es aCher.l1ae. the Secre~ary w1!l continu~ t.o rev!.ew la!le. IlXc~anges \mCler aectf.cm 204 of the miCA. Thi:s 1:1 :be o:uy rQrna!~i~g a~atu~ory du~y of the Sec~ct&ry at ~e In~erio:.

14: !;: =-.ec:e:ll: dac:i&icDSI. the ~U.n~h Circuit MEi ;oej ec:te~ juri6C!1ct.J.o!1a~ are~~"nt8 ~de by Ka~a1i 1n auits broughe by nac1vQ Xawai!ana to sec:.u:H o:eos"Clllc::.ivu relief in the tiJlI.lorc.mcaut: o! Slsc~:Lon S {f J • iA.e.. e; 1'1" tciAUki.ha.- Panaewa CgmmUli, l ty Ass' n V. Ha'l1i11an Hpmag Cwr;d·Igicm4. il9 i.2d 1467 {9th eir., 1984) (:.tiva Hawa~ians ma~ ~a~ta1~·an a.c:icn \!:lde~ C2 U.S.C. § 1983 to 8~!orce the-scatahoQd. ·Ac:):· nS1gah1: y. felty, 921 i'.2d 827 (9t::z Ci::., 1990). ~ depied" 90 J1.S.L.W. 3365 (Oca:obe:"' S, 1"9'1.) ':::a~ive ~wa1.1a~9, a~ pocan~iZll b,u:a.f!c:i.ar1ea a~ ~he publi.c t ':'\lac. ba~e sr.a:ccSing to. enfc;-ce Bect!~n S tf! . J

, ". -,

.....

I ~ 1


01/25/05 11m 15:45 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWAITAN AFPAIRS 1al018

PHONE NO, Jan. 25 2aBS 81: 19PM Pi9

~~ ad~~t~on ta tha Scc~ct~'s one duty, ~~e j:!ted S:acee re~Alca auttlot'!.zed ~nc!or 5Gr:tion 5' f) af the S~at.flhooc1 Act to br!.~g· &A enf:,,:cemGllt ac:cion aga.1nsc; the Seata ~or brliii1a.c:h Q: tt'U6C. 1::1 ~.i r;,= Y. St~te Qf HawA~, che NiD~h ci~cuit held t~ac Hawa11 was ~e a :l;auc.ta:y for tho public lane! trust: UJlCler aaction 5 {~" anCl tha.t. the SeatGl hac ~ida c1:i,acretioa. in implamel'ltina t1'1a public lilr.d t:ust. 92:' PI.e 'SO, 955-56 '(9t:h C:1r. 1.9.91) .DI. .. ,

Un~a% the Act, the cedad lands a~e to be held upor. a publ:Lc ·trust:, . .a&:C1 undo:: section 5 (E) the Un1:ed S-tates can bring an action :l~ chat tl:Ust:

. .' is violated. Ho~eva:r, l1.othing ira tJ..a.c . statemant ind.!ca.~e8 t:~at the parcieB co the campa.cc ag"reed ~ha.t all ,pl:ovislorlEi o£ the carmon law of c%UatB would manacl. the State aft it a.:~err.pt.ed, to de.:.l vith the v~~t qua.."lt icy 0' land =o~'lGye~ to 1~ fa: tho ra~her b~oa~. al;hough ~Qt all~enco~~£e~ing, lise ot pub:ic PC=PDSSS set fcr~h 1~ section 5(fi.

921 F~2~ 3S0, 955.

Hawaii ~.&4 ma.de marked. CMn!ius tc the HliCA. since ac:h!.eving' Sta.t:.er.ooc1. As a. result, tbe DCA baa ass\:mSc!.., a.s a Eaattsr of St&ta law, a b~cader cha~actQ~ than haG been. the case uDde~ ~he pre·!ta~ehood leg1s1a.tian.

Amocs'o~~er chings, che S~ate el~nated·~he4f~jQiug ce111ngs ~r.d lied.tat ions on ac:eage t.o be opened Co ha:r.aacaading that were included in tne Pedar&l law. .It adopted aD accele~atQ4 leasing prog-ram and. pl:cv:!.dec! Scate a.pprG'lpr:!.ationll to laeet the a.cl:a1n1sra=a.ti"e eXpansea of the Ccmn:'msioh.. 'l'he Stat. bae issued le~al ap1;n1ons wit;" ~dre reae:~~tive cQDclue!cnl :8!arding t~e pe~iasible use of t~e available lands than ~cl been t.he c:aae 1ll :he opin1ona af I±e Atcorney GenfWal af the ~el:'ritQl:Y a: Hawe.!.i. _ '1'l:.e.St.a.t:.a .sup:r:.eme. .c:O\\~ has held ~r.at as a ~~~e~ of seace lAW, Hawaii ha~ acceptod a crus: ::sspor:.sJ.b11ity tor I;he Han11an Homes pJ:'ograa.. au MYna x· Depa~~ent OC.8,aWAii ap Hg~Q Land" 64 law. 327, 640 P.2d 1161 tHav. '1982) •

Wier.. theBe chaDgoe. EIa.waii has clona 11\0'"£1 tl".a-n tbe Unitacf scat-es r.equ.:i.J:ed it CO 40 .,,:1de~ :l.t:s ccinpa.c~ 1Itith the ttnit:ad S~a\:Cl' !n SBctioJ: 4 o! the Statehood. Ace. 'l'1la chaDgee tha SI:~tQ c;hcse to make toe tl1e KKa cmmot ~etrcactivQly ebaDsa thQ cha:ra.c:ear oe chat "tatu~e at: QX"ea):1 responsibilities in t..~Q t1nica!S Stat.s t:b:&C c:on9"X'~B .did DOC create 1n sither the United 9tat:all 0: ~be 'l'el:'rltoi:y of DwaiJ.. 'l'hsy

. .. 1!1 A1 though the Hawai!~ Ji=-e tlauds a.Z'G nat w1th1:1 t:ha scope Clf t.he EJ ec~1on S ttl pul:tl:Lc: twet, 8oatJ.or.. £5 't:) dead ao~ f!~1rQc:l0 •• tlJ,- lhIi toed States ,f~mn bx!l.l1ging ,us. c a~a.i~D~ l:he S~te t.o· !mpl.a:IlIU1C eection 4. priee 'Y'. BJsiY, .,as P,2,,· a2~, 826 ~.1·'Cft:h Ciz:o. '1.990).

1.8

. . I t ,

:1=, ..... .... ...,~~

£;)"IC

:-9: -I., •• , f

flee

r::; t~ !.r:c: ber be ,\lOt 1n S~a ~~--..... A!.t ::wt i: ! :ho .t! -I

C.Q:' S2G ... ", -" 6:: ::':w u:'!c 1-·----~4r Cir

I:: i H;.w; bot: cia. c:111. p::ec ~ . • mp.

·the: t~e to 1 ei inc

JJI A COUl ~99l nal:! t::".J" ]95.

01/25/05 11m 15:45 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWAITAN AFPAIRS 1al018

PHONE NO, Jan. 25 2aBS 81: 19PM Pi9

~~ ad~~t~on ta tha Scc~ct~'s one duty, ~~e j:!ted S:acee re~Alca auttlot'!.zed ~nc!or 5Gr:tion 5' f) af the S~at.flhooc1 Act to br!.~g· &A enf:,,:cemGllt ac:cion aga.1nsc; the Seata ~or brliii1a.c:h Q: tt'U6C. 1::1 ~.i r;,= Y. St~te Qf HawA~, che NiD~h ci~cuit held t~ac Hawa11 was ~e a :l;auc.ta:y for tho public lane! trust: UJlCler aaction 5 {~" anCl tha.t. the SeatGl hac ~ida c1:i,acretioa. in implamel'ltina t1'1a public lilr.d t:ust. 92:' PI.e 'SO, 955-56 '(9t:h C:1r. 1.9.91) .DI. .. ,

Un~a% the Act, the cedad lands a~e to be held upor. a publ:Lc ·trust:, . .a&:C1 undo:: section 5 (E) the Un1:ed S-tates can bring an action :l~ chat tl:Ust:

. .' is violated. Ho~eva:r, l1.othing ira tJ..a.c . statemant ind.!ca.~e8 t:~at the parcieB co the campa.cc ag"reed ~ha.t all ,pl:ovislorlEi o£ the carmon law of c%UatB would manacl. the State aft it a.:~err.pt.ed, to de.:.l vith the v~~t qua.."lt icy 0' land =o~'lGye~ to 1~ fa: tho ra~her b~oa~. al;hough ~Qt all~enco~~£e~ing, lise ot pub:ic PC=PDSSS set fcr~h 1~ section 5(fi.

921 F~2~ 3S0, 955.

Hawaii ~.&4 ma.de marked. CMn!ius tc the HliCA. since ac:h!.eving' Sta.t:.er.ooc1. As a. result, tbe DCA baa ass\:mSc!.., a.s a Eaattsr of St&ta law, a b~cader cha~actQ~ than haG been. the case uDde~ ~he pre·!ta~ehood leg1s1a.tian.

Amocs'o~~er chings, che S~ate el~nated·~he4f~jQiug ce111ngs ~r.d lied.tat ions on ac:eage t.o be opened Co ha:r.aacaading that were included in tne Pedar&l law. .It adopted aD accele~atQ4 leasing prog-ram and. pl:cv:!.dec! Scate a.pprG'lpr:!.ationll to laeet the a.cl:a1n1sra=a.ti"e eXpansea of the Ccmn:'msioh.. 'l'he Stat. bae issued le~al ap1;n1ons wit;" ~dre reae:~~tive cQDclue!cnl :8!arding t~e pe~iasible use of t~e available lands than ~cl been t.he c:aae 1ll :he opin1ona af I±e Atcorney GenfWal af the ~el:'ritQl:Y a: Hawe.!.i. _ '1'l:.e.St.a.t:.a .sup:r:.eme. .c:O\\~ has held ~r.at as a ~~~e~ of seace lAW, Hawaii ha~ acceptod a crus: ::sspor:.sJ.b11ity tor I;he Han11an Homes pJ:'ograa.. au MYna x· Depa~~ent OC.8,aWAii ap Hg~Q Land" 64 law. 327, 640 P.2d 1161 tHav. '1982) •

Wier.. theBe chaDgoe. EIa.waii has clona 11\0'"£1 tl".a-n tbe Unitacf scat-es r.equ.:i.J:ed it CO 40 .,,:1de~ :l.t:s ccinpa.c~ 1Itith the ttnit:ad S~a\:Cl' !n SBctioJ: 4 o! the Statehood. Ace. 'l'1la chaDgee tha SI:~tQ c;hcse to make toe tl1e KKa cmmot ~etrcactivQly ebaDsa thQ cha:ra.c:ear oe chat "tatu~e at: QX"ea):1 responsibilities in t..~Q t1nica!S Stat.s t:b:&C c:on9"X'~B .did DOC create 1n sither the United 9tat:all 0: ~be 'l'el:'rltoi:y of DwaiJ.. 'l'hsy

. .. 1!1 A1 though the Hawai!~ Ji=-e tlauds a.Z'G nat w1th1:1 t:ha scope Clf t.he EJ ec~1on S ttl pul:tl:Lc: twet, 8oatJ.or.. £5 't:) dead ao~ f!~1rQc:l0 •• tlJ,- lhIi toed States ,f~mn bx!l.l1ging ,us. c a~a.i~D~ l:he S~te t.o· !mpl.a:IlIU1C eection 4. priee 'Y'. BJsiY, .,as P,2,,· a2~, 826 ~.1·'Cft:h Ciz:o. '1.990).

1.8

. . I t ,

:1=, ..... .... ...,~~

£;)"IC

:-9: -I., •• , f

flee

r::; t~ !.r:c: ber be ,\lOt 1n S~a ~~--..... A!.t ::wt i: ! :ho .t! -I

C.Q:' S2G ... ", -" 6:: ::':w u:'!c 1-·----~4r Cir

I:: i H;.w; bot: cia. c:111. p::ec ~ . • mp.

·the: t~e to 1 ei inc

JJI A COUl ~99l nal:! t::".J" ]95.


01/25/05 TIm 15:40 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWATIAN AFFATRS IdJ 019

PHJNE NO, Jan. 25 2eas 01:20PM P2B

?O:5:J!J:l·e .;;'ede=a~ legal a.ction G.gaic.st the St.a::e voul'd alsc ne~d \:0 t~~e i~c~ account t~e en!crcemenc remedies thac are available to !nd!v1duale. ~c.ege ~~medies a~e impor:ant because tna pocential ber..eeic:ia::!.as \:r.c!er: t~1! It.t£CA and. the st.atehood Act o~~1nari.ly would be in a. better pos~cion to' aaeer:ain ace evaluatg tteca f·a.cts .underlyl~9 ~.di6p~te char. would the Federal OCVQ:~~8r.t. There is 1n !act slgnit1cant legal re~oc~gQ av.!l~le !: bo:h Federal aT~ S~a~e forums ::0 1:div~:!~a.:"s alleging a viola.tion of sec:.:!.o:l. 5 1!1 of ~~~ Statshcoe Ac~.

r.!.e!\o~s~ t:::t! n!.:l::':' Circt!i: i~itiillly ~lQld th-at ::a:::'v~ liCiL."a.:'ia:::s cO:lld noc br1:9' :;Jl.:!e d~t'Qc~ly £:0 en.lorce 6Eic:;!on S (f: of tl:c St.icei:cod Ac::~ £.: has aubsequ~:1t:':y allc· ... ed r:at!'ve.r.a:4iians to ~::i:lS' :suit 'to enforce :h~ ;'1:: uncle:: c::e Ci'".!l R.ights Ace, 042 U.S.C. ,S J.983. s.:u., to"DSP'U:· ii~9!2, ~~~a~i·p~4a~~ C;~~ril~y ~na'~ v, F4W~~~gD Vnwgs ~vwmige·gr., sse ~.2d L2l6 (5th c!r. 1978), C@~:. ~~tQ. ~,~ U.s. g2G ;!.i?9); (":(ea'.l~aha t"): 73' :.~d li67 {9th eire 1S64} (1'K.eauka!Ul ::

11;: i=rf AS: y. H~" J, 939 i.ad '02 .. (9...t..,"l..Cir. • .1950). _~e""'h r..:x." =d,

6~ U.S.~.~. 326S 'Oc~obar 8. 199tJ. The Nint~ Circuit hag r.oced n-:wl.:!.,er. :~~a: ~hile 1: ~3S ju:,~sd1c:::'on i:C hea= p:-U9p8c:r.~ve cla ~ra:B t::-.de:- chc StAtehood Ace 1::,1 na.tive t!a.waiiacs, it 'c1ces net have 1°.!::-!.sdict:.1on t.e ~ear r.la,1ms to::' ~ect'cac:: t ve relief. Such c:la.1.I'!lSl a.::a bar:-ed by tt';,e ::!e""enct-.. Amer.dment, U' al~Q X, eat", 902 i' .~d 1.355 (9th Clr. 1990). J

!~ addition to che Fede~al r~~~dy p~avidQ~ by 4J u.s.c. 5 1983. t~e ~a.wa.i~ ~89illl-t\!:t'8. h~8 onac:eecl legiala:t1on auti'1orizi:!.g tl1e awad of bot~ pros~ectiye and reezaaceiva ~'liQf to na~£ve Haw~!ians for clai~d viclae1or.s o~ chs HKCA and the section 5(ft ~~~S~.~ Thase c!~imB ~d t~e Sta.~e pJ;'oc:~eseB under vb1ctL t~ey are hea.rd a~e credl:ate: UtlC!'1 Stato law and. St:.ate i=t21CJ:\er-t.at:io:. of 'tl:.a ~:HCA. Th~y ~mpli=~te :lC PecorAl resp0:1eib1:' lty e1t.her bet ore Stac:ehood or ehereafter. ~lthougb Pe~aral accion rQ~i~ available to enforce t~ JU!eA. the :'!lcres.sing Gva.!lal;)11ity of i'~deral, aa:a state re.~ed:l.elS .~. to i::dividuals. a.s well a.s the cnanged c.'1aractu th~ lUlCA has assumed ~~nce S~~t~hood, suggeees that Federal action to enforce sectic~9

!JI Act 355. SLH 1'28. a.ut~OriZ8B native Havai!a.:lB to sue in State' court tar p~a8pec~1ve re11e~ e!tect!ve July 1. '1'88. ~ct,323. 5LK ~991, ~9Cab~i&~.s a e1&imB pa~al ac4 p~oees. ~a Sta~e cour~ ~O~ Dat.1v& Hilwai!.ans to secU:%'B IIlC:s.su:a:'"J' 'damages fo%' a;~legac1 breaches of cr~sc thac cl;~ul:'reo bet.ween Sl:atshaad and !:he atfeC:c!.ve c!ac,a ot Act 395.

01/25/05 TIm 15:40 FAX 8085941888 OFC OF HAWATIAN AFFATRS IdJ 019

PHJNE NO, Jan. 25 2eas 01:20PM P2B

?O:5:J!J:l·e .;;'ede=a~ legal a.ction G.gaic.st the St.a::e voul'd alsc ne~d \:0 t~~e i~c~ account t~e en!crcemenc remedies thac are available to !nd!v1duale. ~c.ege ~~medies a~e impor:ant because tna pocential ber..eeic:ia::!.as \:r.c!er: t~1! It.t£CA and. the st.atehood Act o~~1nari.ly would be in a. better pos~cion to' aaeer:ain ace evaluatg tteca f·a.cts .underlyl~9 ~.di6p~te char. would the Federal OCVQ:~~8r.t. There is 1n !act slgnit1cant legal re~oc~gQ av.!l~le !: bo:h Federal aT~ S~a~e forums ::0 1:div~:!~a.:"s alleging a viola.tion of sec:.:!.o:l. 5 1!1 of ~~~ Statshcoe Ac~.

r.!.e!\o~s~ t:::t! n!.:l::':' Circt!i: i~itiillly ~lQld th-at ::a:::'v~ liCiL."a.:'ia:::s cO:lld noc br1:9' :;Jl.:!e d~t'Qc~ly £:0 en.lorce 6Eic:;!on S (f: of tl:c St.icei:cod Ac::~ £.: has aubsequ~:1t:':y allc· ... ed r:at!'ve.r.a:4iians to ~::i:lS' :suit 'to enforce :h~ ;'1:: uncle:: c::e Ci'".!l R.ights Ace, 042 U.S.C. ,S J.983. s.:u., to"DSP'U:· ii~9!2, ~~~a~i·p~4a~~ C;~~ril~y ~na'~ v, F4W~~~gD Vnwgs ~vwmige·gr., sse ~.2d L2l6 (5th c!r. 1978), C@~:. ~~tQ. ~,~ U.s. g2G ;!.i?9); (":(ea'.l~aha t"): 73' :.~d li67 {9th eire 1S64} (1'K.eauka!Ul ::

11;: i=rf AS: y. H~" J, 939 i.ad '02 .. (9...t..,"l..Cir. • .1950). _~e""'h r..:x." =d,

6~ U.S.~.~. 326S 'Oc~obar 8. 199tJ. The Nint~ Circuit hag r.oced n-:wl.:!.,er. :~~a: ~hile 1: ~3S ju:,~sd1c:::'on i:C hea= p:-U9p8c:r.~ve cla ~ra:B t::-.de:- chc StAtehood Ace 1::,1 na.tive t!a.waiiacs, it 'c1ces net have 1°.!::-!.sdict:.1on t.e ~ear r.la,1ms to::' ~ect'cac:: t ve relief. Such c:la.1.I'!lSl a.::a bar:-ed by tt';,e ::!e""enct-.. Amer.dment, U' al~Q X, eat", 902 i' .~d 1.355 (9th Clr. 1990). J

!~ addition to che Fede~al r~~~dy p~avidQ~ by 4J u.s.c. 5 1983. t~e ~a.wa.i~ ~89illl-t\!:t'8. h~8 onac:eecl legiala:t1on auti'1orizi:!.g tl1e awad of bot~ pros~ectiye and reezaaceiva ~'liQf to na~£ve Haw~!ians for clai~d viclae1or.s o~ chs HKCA and the section 5(ft ~~~S~.~ Thase c!~imB ~d t~e Sta.~e pJ;'oc:~eseB under vb1ctL t~ey are hea.rd a~e credl:ate: UtlC!'1 Stato law and. St:.ate i=t21CJ:\er-t.at:io:. of 'tl:.a ~:HCA. Th~y ~mpli=~te :lC PecorAl resp0:1eib1:' lty e1t.her bet ore Stac:ehood or ehereafter. ~lthougb Pe~aral accion rQ~i~ available to enforce t~ JU!eA. the :'!lcres.sing Gva.!lal;)11ity of i'~deral, aa:a state re.~ed:l.elS .~. to i::dividuals. a.s well a.s the cnanged c.'1aractu th~ lUlCA has assumed ~~nce S~~t~hood, suggeees that Federal action to enforce sectic~9

!JI Act 355. SLH 1'28. a.ut~OriZ8B native Havai!a.:lB to sue in State' court tar p~a8pec~1ve re11e~ e!tect!ve July 1. '1'88. ~ct,323. 5LK ~991, ~9Cab~i&~.s a e1&imB pa~al ac4 p~oees. ~a Sta~e cour~ ~O~ Dat.1v& Hilwai!.ans to secU:%'B IIlC:s.su:a:'"J' 'damages fo%' a;~legac1 breaches of cr~sc thac cl;~ul:'reo bet.ween Sl:atshaad and !:he atfeC:c!.ve c!ac,a ot Act 395.


01 / 2:i / OG T1JR 1 ~ : 46 FAX tlOBG!141 ABB or c OF HAIIAlTAN ,~rrA1RS ~ 020

PHONE NO • Jan. 25 2005 01: ~M P21

.; ar..c. 5 l!1 pi t:!.c Statcr~coci h.e:: w;;;·...:ld be a~pr:uy;-!ace c~ly in =are insta.:'!cae .

ZV . Concl~5ic~

?or the rea~o~~ d~scusscd above, we con=luda tha~ the Un~~ed S:atee :8 ~ot a trustee ter native Rawal.ians. We turr.h~r eonolud .. chat t he ERCA dLd not o:!:ea,t:.e .. .a fi.duc!.a:ry respon'!li:uiJ;rcy , in any .,arcy. the ' United Stnces. t:~e Territory ot I!awaii, or eM St.ilte of Hawaii. Cell'JCy Solic ,teor Ferguso!'.' 5 opinior. at' .August · 27, 1979, :"9 Sluperaadec! and over:-ulec! :'0 tl~l! extsoc that 'it is incor.slstant with th!.s rr.amerar..durn .

Th~~~6 L. 9ar.sonet~i 50licitcr

t hI-v 'Pre4e Hawai aush StM:s tho K ,UII . have

'rhe nl the 81 ,the t agUe l:!.ti.\l Janua the 1 those bring Qourt !:he 111 Ci.I:olI

The 0 'rl'\era, seems its e: a.ny f the j) txten ~hc U

01 / 2:i / OG T1JR 1 ~ : 46 FAX tlOBG!141 ABB or c OF HAIIAlTAN ,~rrA1RS ~ 020

PHONE NO • Jan. 25 2005 01: ~M P21

.; ar..c. 5 l!1 pi t:!.c Statcr~coci h.e:: w;;;·...:ld be a~pr:uy;-!ace c~ly in =are insta.:'!cae .

ZV . Concl~5ic~

?or the rea~o~~ d~scusscd above, we con=luda tha~ the Un~~ed S:atee :8 ~ot a trustee ter native Rawal.ians. We turr.h~r eonolud .. chat t he ERCA dLd not o:!:ea,t:.e .. .a fi.duc!.a:ry respon'!li:uiJ;rcy , in any .,arcy. the ' United Stnces. t:~e Territory ot I!awaii, or eM St.ilte of Hawaii. Cell'JCy Solic ,teor Ferguso!'.' 5 opinior. at' .August · 27, 1979, :"9 Sluperaadec! and over:-ulec! :'0 tl~l! extsoc that 'it is incor.slstant with th!.s rr.amerar..durn .

Th~~~6 L. 9ar.sonet~i 50licitcr

t hI-v 'Pre4e Hawai aush StM:s tho K ,UII . have

'rhe nl the 81 ,the t agUe l:!.ti.\l Janua the 1 those bring Qourt !:he 111 Ci.I:olI

The 0 'rl'\era, seems its e: a.ny f the j) txten ~hc U


01 / 2;i / 05

l'

. , . .

, I

, ~ .

•

~I ffi 1,, :47 FAX 80859418 88 _ ______ OF_r,_O~F_, =RAIVA TT AN WPA IRS

~">" --'-----:,=LL _ -----",=-. ~

~02 1

PHONE /-'0. Jan, 2S 2005 01:21PM P22


omCll OY TAR SQUc:rroR. Wuhlngwn, l),C. 20t4D

STAorlMBNl' or SOLtcx~a ~aHN ~. LKSHY

November ill, 19113

3 i J: have deoided to ",1thcJraw thCl t7anuuy 1 II, f 9513, opinion of Ill'

~ p~edece5llQ;cQn the ..,,,ope CIt! IAderal railpo~8:1.bUit::l.e4 for !lat:i.ve

. Hl'waUana. '1'ha!: formal b9a1 Opinion, blued al; th~ VCJOY end Clf the

B~$h A4mint.t4~t1on, !t~.d OU~ a b:oad poG1tLcn that the Unil:e~

state. ~d littl. responsibil~ty regarding ~ativc Hawaiian! ~nQer

the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921 apd the stat .. hooQ Act of

, 9~9, tt:1I b40ad l&nliJ\l!lge and ~remi$e9, CoUli'led wi till Hs tillling',

nqve created doneid.rapla aon~rQversy,

· 'l'he nan'QW is,ulla add:r:(lssed tn the op1nion--wheol:hezo t:he 1921 "'01: And

· the Statehood ),Clt o::eated It tl!ld,ral Er~Qt rBspoMibiUty M4 Wh.tber

· thB Un~t:Qd states can be jUdic;;iB-lly ' cOITl"allBd to bring' A 10\lal

ilQUOn to en1!o:rae th84B ,.ta!:~t:8lI~-&re 1.\1: :l.uue $.n peruSing

litigation. TAB Dtparlmen; of JustiOB, ~ithout r6f.~ring to the

January '9 ' Solioita~f~ opinio~, has b~e~; aefending thB position 1n

~be l~t:i9a!:ion th~t nQ laderal truat: r~lponaibilit:~ ax:l..ts undsr

those st:atutss ~~ ChGt: the Uft1ted states aannob b. compelled to

bring an ontorceJnent: acl;!.ol1, In Vebr\le.:r:y , 9513, ~he ;tldu'e.l. ~hl:rict

Qaur!: in Hawaii} also wUnout l:'ohrdi'lq to the cp~"!on, found for

!:.he U:n.l.ted StabillJ all thllse issuu, The Ci&4e i$ nOW"before the Ninth

c~duL!: Couxt: of App.al.,

The tll'l1i:ed sta!:e« is lIIaint:llining its ~lijiUon bl the li!:iga.t:ion.

Tllereforo, :.:ewr~t:tl\g tho Jl1llu/s,.y 19 Opinion to narrOW it. focUS

.uema Unnl!lC::1I8&t~ry, Instead} I BIll simpl.y withdrawing the Opinir;m in

its enUret.y. '1'0 avOid cons:usiOlll I lUll at the! lIame l:illle (!!sclaill1ing

any !ut~e Oepartmental ~elianc~ upon an August J7, 1919, lett&r ot the ~epul;y SoBci·tor (cverr.lled in !:he J&lIuary 19 opinion) to ChI}

exl;.n.~ it could be cI:mstrlJed III .incons1l1tent with the position of

the united S~ats~ in the liC~9a!:ion.

01 / 2;i / 05

l'

. , . .

, I

, ~ .

•

~I ffi 1,, :47 FAX 80859418 88 _ ______ OF_r,_O~F_, =RAIVA TT AN WPA IRS

~">" --'-----:,=LL _ -----",=-. ~

~02 1

PHONE /-'0. Jan, 2S 2005 01:21PM P22


omCll OY TAR SQUc:rroR. Wuhlngwn, l),C. 20t4D

STAorlMBNl' or SOLtcx~a ~aHN ~. LKSHY

November ill, 19113

3 i J: have deoided to ",1thcJraw thCl t7anuuy 1 II, f 9513, opinion of Ill'

~ p~edece5llQ;cQn the ..,,,ope CIt! IAderal railpo~8:1.bUit::l.e4 for !lat:i.ve

. Hl'waUana. '1'ha!: formal b9a1 Opinion, blued al; th~ VCJOY end Clf the

B~$h A4mint.t4~t1on, !t~.d OU~ a b:oad poG1tLcn that the Unil:e~

state. ~d littl. responsibil~ty regarding ~ativc Hawaiian! ~nQer

the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921 apd the stat .. hooQ Act of

, 9~9, tt:1I b40ad l&nliJ\l!lge and ~remi$e9, CoUli'led wi till Hs tillling',

nqve created doneid.rapla aon~rQversy,

· 'l'he nan'QW is,ulla add:r:(lssed tn the op1nion--wheol:hezo t:he 1921 "'01: And

· the Statehood ),Clt o::eated It tl!ld,ral Er~Qt rBspoMibiUty M4 Wh.tber

· thB Un~t:Qd states can be jUdic;;iB-lly ' cOITl"allBd to bring' A 10\lal

ilQUOn to en1!o:rae th84B ,.ta!:~t:8lI~-&re 1.\1: :l.uue $.n peruSing

litigation. TAB Dtparlmen; of JustiOB, ~ithout r6f.~ring to the

January '9 ' Solioita~f~ opinio~, has b~e~; aefending thB position 1n

~be l~t:i9a!:ion th~t nQ laderal truat: r~lponaibilit:~ ax:l..ts undsr

those st:atutss ~~ ChGt: the Uft1ted states aannob b. compelled to

bring an ontorceJnent: acl;!.ol1, In Vebr\le.:r:y , 9513, ~he ;tldu'e.l. ~hl:rict

Qaur!: in Hawaii} also wUnout l:'ohrdi'lq to the cp~"!on, found for

!:.he U:n.l.ted StabillJ all thllse issuu, The Ci&4e i$ nOW"before the Ninth

c~duL!: Couxt: of App.al.,

The tll'l1i:ed sta!:e« is lIIaint:llining its ~lijiUon bl the li!:iga.t:ion.

Tllereforo, :.:ewr~t:tl\g tho Jl1llu/s,.y 19 Opinion to narrOW it. focUS

.uema Unnl!lC::1I8&t~ry, Instead} I BIll simpl.y withdrawing the Opinir;m in

its enUret.y. '1'0 avOid cons:usiOlll I lUll at the! lIame l:illle (!!sclaill1ing

any !ut~e Oepartmental ~elianc~ upon an August J7, 1919, lett&r ot the ~epul;y SoBci·tor (cverr.lled in !:he J&lIuary 19 opinion) to ChI}

exl;.n.~ it could be cI:mstrlJed III .incons1l1tent with the position of

the united S~ats~ in the liC~9a!:ion.


(

(

In our view, the Opinion distorts existing trust law and misconstrues the legal and historic record of the United states' relationship and dealings with Native Hawaiians.' Perhaps more fundamentally, the Opinion is driven by a philosophic bias that opposes preferences and affirmative action and views Native Hawaiians as a ethnic minority with no special rights. This "no special rights" viewpoint permeates virtually all of the "legal" theories advanced by the Reagan-Bush Administrations. This view would deny the unique constitutional status of native people as having a distinct political relationship with the united states. The trust relationship is a key ingredient in and is intertwined with the concept of a political relationship. No trust relationship translates as no political relationship.

In the Native American context, the effort has been to narrow the class of "Indians" and other natives eligible for the Morton v. Mancari2 "political-not-racial" classification analysis. Under Morton and its progeny, programs and preferences established by Congress for Native Americans are viewed as political rather than racial preferences, and are constitutional as long as they are rational. If, however, Native Americans, in this case Native Hawaiians, were to be legally defined as a racial and not as a political class, any congressional action that was based on such a racial classification would be subject to the strict scrutiny review of the courts. Almost no legislation based on racial classifications can withstand the strict scrutiny standard of review.

I. TRUST RESPONSIBILITY

As indicated above, the Opinion misconstrues trust law as it' relates to Native Americans. It makes no distinction between the existence of a trust, and the ability to hold the united states financially liable. In effect, the Opinion begins its analysis from a specific search for financial liability on the part of the United states and works backward from that point. Somewhat simplistically, if it cannot find clear financially liability, the Opinion concludes there can be no trust.

The Opinion focuses on Mitchell 13 and Mitchell II.4 The

1 Although by necessity some of the same ground will be covered, to the extent possible this memorandum will not replicate the excellent critique of the opinion contained in the March 2, 1993 memorandum from William M. Tam, Deputy Attorney General (Hawaii) to Robert A. Marks, Attorney General (Hawaii).

2417 U.S. 535 (1971).

3 united states v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980).

4 united states v. Mitchell. 463 U.S. 206 (1983).

(

(

In our view, the Opinion distorts existing trust law and misconstrues the legal and historic record of the United states' relationship and dealings with Native Hawaiians.' Perhaps more fundamentally, the Opinion is driven by a philosophic bias that opposes preferences and affirmative action and views Native Hawaiians as a ethnic minority with no special rights. This "no special rights" viewpoint permeates virtually all of the "legal" theories advanced by the Reagan-Bush Administrations. This view would deny the unique constitutional status of native people as having a distinct political relationship with the united states. The trust relationship is a key ingredient in and is intertwined with the concept of a political relationship. No trust relationship translates as no political relationship.

In the Native American context, the effort has been to narrow the class of "Indians" and other natives eligible for the Morton v. Mancari2 "political-not-racial" classification analysis. Under Morton and its progeny, programs and preferences established by Congress for Native Americans are viewed as political rather than racial preferences, and are constitutional as long as they are rational. If, however, Native Americans, in this case Native Hawaiians, were to be legally defined as a racial and not as a political class, any congressional action that was based on such a racial classification would be subject to the strict scrutiny review of the courts. Almost no legislation based on racial classifications can withstand the strict scrutiny standard of review.

I. TRUST RESPONSIBILITY

As indicated above, the Opinion misconstrues trust law as it' relates to Native Americans. It makes no distinction between the existence of a trust, and the ability to hold the united states financially liable. In effect, the Opinion begins its analysis from a specific search for financial liability on the part of the United states and works backward from that point. Somewhat simplistically, if it cannot find clear financially liability, the Opinion concludes there can be no trust.

The Opinion focuses on Mitchell 13 and Mitchell II.4 The

1 Although by necessity some of the same ground will be covered, to the extent possible this memorandum will not replicate the excellent critique of the opinion contained in the March 2, 1993 memorandum from William M. Tam, Deputy Attorney General (Hawaii) to Robert A. Marks, Attorney General (Hawaii).

2417 U.S. 535 (1971).

3 united states v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980).

4 united states v. Mitchell. 463 U.S. 206 (1983).


(

(

inquiry of the federal Court of Claims in both Mitchell cases was whether the United states could be held financially liable for the mismanagement of forestry resources on trust allotments and tribal trust lands within the Quinault Indian Reservation. In Mitchell I, an allotment statute by itself was held to be an insufficient basis to hold the United states liable; however, in Mitchell II, a forestry management statute, federal regulations thereunder, and the de facto day-to-day federal management of the Indian forests were deemed to be a sufficient basis for finding federal liability for decades of severe forest mismanagement.

The Opinion concludes that Mitchell II somehow precludes a determination that there is a trust responsibility under the Hawaiian Home Lands Act. 5 It fails to recognize that the trust responsibility is a broader concept than financial liability. Had the inquiry in Mitchell I been whether a trust relationship existed between the Tribe and the Indian allottees and the united states, the answer would have been yes. Did that trust responsibility extend to the protection of the title to trust lands? certainly. It was only when the question focused on the management of timber resources that the question narrowed and the general trust responsibility of the united states was found to be insufficient to produce liability.

In the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust context, the Opinion did not need to address any liability questions. These questions are not ready to be answered; they cannot be reached under current federal law. The only question that can now be addressed is "whether under trust law concepts does some sort of trust responsibility exist between the United states and Native Hawaiians in general and specifically with respect to the Home Lands Trust?" Any rational observer would have to answer affirmatively.6

Perhaps because Congress is considering addressing the liability questions by statutorily allowing the state of Hawaii, and the Native Hawaiian beneficiaries of the Home Land Trust, standing to bring suit against the United states for financial damages for the united states' management of the Home Lands Trust, the Solicitor drafted either a practice defense brief or a

5 Even if the solicitor were correct that Mitchell II is the proper inquiry, the Tam memorandum, supra note 1, adequately demonstrates the detailed control and supervision contemplated by the Mitchell II analysis.

6 See Felix Cohen, Federal Indian Law 797-98 (1982 ed). Also see letter from editors to Senator Akaka, appendix to Tam Memorandum, supra note 1.

3

(

(

inquiry of the federal Court of Claims in both Mitchell cases was whether the United states could be held financially liable for the mismanagement of forestry resources on trust allotments and tribal trust lands within the Quinault Indian Reservation. In Mitchell I, an allotment statute by itself was held to be an insufficient basis to hold the United states liable; however, in Mitchell II, a forestry management statute, federal regulations thereunder, and the de facto day-to-day federal management of the Indian forests were deemed to be a sufficient basis for finding federal liability for decades of severe forest mismanagement.

The Opinion concludes that Mitchell II somehow precludes a determination that there is a trust responsibility under the Hawaiian Home Lands Act. 5 It fails to recognize that the trust responsibility is a broader concept than financial liability. Had the inquiry in Mitchell I been whether a trust relationship existed between the Tribe and the Indian allottees and the united states, the answer would have been yes. Did that trust responsibility extend to the protection of the title to trust lands? certainly. It was only when the question focused on the management of timber resources that the question narrowed and the general trust responsibility of the united states was found to be insufficient to produce liability.

In the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust context, the Opinion did not need to address any liability questions. These questions are not ready to be answered; they cannot be reached under current federal law. The only question that can now be addressed is "whether under trust law concepts does some sort of trust responsibility exist between the United states and Native Hawaiians in general and specifically with respect to the Home Lands Trust?" Any rational observer would have to answer affirmatively.6

Perhaps because Congress is considering addressing the liability questions by statutorily allowing the state of Hawaii, and the Native Hawaiian beneficiaries of the Home Land Trust, standing to bring suit against the United states for financial damages for the united states' management of the Home Lands Trust, the Solicitor drafted either a practice defense brief or a

5 Even if the solicitor were correct that Mitchell II is the proper inquiry, the Tam memorandum, supra note 1, adequately demonstrates the detailed control and supervision contemplated by the Mitchell II analysis.

6 See Felix Cohen, Federal Indian Law 797-98 (1982 ed). Also see letter from editors to Senator Akaka, appendix to Tam Memorandum, supra note 1.

3


(

(

political statement to try to influence Congress. Whatever it is, it is premature; not only will the United states' defense to any eventual claims rely on the details of the Home Lands Trust statute itself, but more fundamentally it will have to rely on the terms of any future statute that allows these questions to be addressed. Congress, acting through legislation, will,.in large part define the scope of liability of the United states, if any.

What the Opinion consistently neglects is that it is Congress that has the plenary power to define, narrow, or expand the trust responsibility. Unless a specific provision of the Constitution is violated, such congressional action has been held not to be judicially reviewable. 7

The trust responsibility owed to each native group is defined by Congress according to the historical relationship and current needs of each particular group. At a minimum the united states has a responsibility to native people to protect their physical assets. This trust responsibility is grounded in treaties, statutes, and the course of dealings between the united states and each native group. Additional responsibilities may arise to reflect evolving economic and political requirements of native governments.

The focus of most Claims Court cases involving Indians has been whether the financial liability of the united states attaches in particular circumstances. Usually the courts will find an enforceable trust obligation requiring the United states to manage tribal property and money properly. The obligation with respect to tribal trust funds is analogous to that of a fiduciary.8

In addition to the role of the trust responsibility in determining liability of the united states, the trust also serves as a basis in certain, albeit limited, situations of requiring services to be provided9 and requiring enhanced due process

7 Menominee Tribe v. united states, 607 F.2d 1335 (ct. Cl. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 950 (1980).

8 Seminole Nation v. united States, 316 U.S. 286 (1942).

9 Based on language in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, as amended (25 U.S.C. section 1601) an obligation to provide health care services was upheld. See White v. Califano, 437 F. Supp. 543 (D.S.D. 1977), aff'd, 581 F.2d 697 (8th Cir. 1978), and McNabb v. Bowen, 829 F. 2d 787 (9th Cir. 1987).

4

(

(

political statement to try to influence Congress. Whatever it is, it is premature; not only will the United states' defense to any eventual claims rely on the details of the Home Lands Trust statute itself, but more fundamentally it will have to rely on the terms of any future statute that allows these questions to be addressed. Congress, acting through legislation, will,.in large part define the scope of liability of the United states, if any.

What the Opinion consistently neglects is that it is Congress that has the plenary power to define, narrow, or expand the trust responsibility. Unless a specific provision of the Constitution is violated, such congressional action has been held not to be judicially reviewable. 7

The trust responsibility owed to each native group is defined by Congress according to the historical relationship and current needs of each particular group. At a minimum the united states has a responsibility to native people to protect their physical assets. This trust responsibility is grounded in treaties, statutes, and the course of dealings between the united states and each native group. Additional responsibilities may arise to reflect evolving economic and political requirements of native governments.

The focus of most Claims Court cases involving Indians has been whether the financial liability of the united states attaches in particular circumstances. Usually the courts will find an enforceable trust obligation requiring the United states to manage tribal property and money properly. The obligation with respect to tribal trust funds is analogous to that of a fiduciary.8

In addition to the role of the trust responsibility in determining liability of the united states, the trust also serves as a basis in certain, albeit limited, situations of requiring services to be provided9 and requiring enhanced due process

7 Menominee Tribe v. united states, 607 F.2d 1335 (ct. Cl. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 950 (1980).

8 Seminole Nation v. united States, 316 U.S. 286 (1942).

9 Based on language in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, as amended (25 U.S.C. section 1601) an obligation to provide health care services was upheld. See White v. Califano, 437 F. Supp. 543 (D.S.D. 1977), aff'd, 581 F.2d 697 (8th Cir. 1978), and McNabb v. Bowen, 829 F. 2d 787 (9th Cir. 1987).

4


(

(

procedures when dealing with trust-related issues. 1o

The point is that the trust relationship has many different applications, and the existence of a trust is a separate analysis from the Mitchell II approach. What Congress has said is key in both approaches. with respect to Native Hawaiians, Congress has been quite clear that a trust responsibility exists between the United states and Native Hawaiians. 11

II. ~LAWS IN TBB OPINION

A. The opinion Ignores the Significance of the 1898 Newlands Resolution and the 1900 organic Act.

Although the Solicitor refers in passing to the Joint Resolution of Annexation,12 and to the Hawaii Organic Act,13 the Opinion fails to focus on the provision in both enactments that establish a separate legal regime for the lands acquired by the United states through annexation, and reserves the revenue and proceeds from these lands "for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Territory of Hawaii."14 This quoted phrase must factually and logically be read to refer to the native people of the Islands. The quoted phrase is a foundation of the trust responsibility recognized and accepted by the united states. The Opinion seems to take the view that whatever trust may have been established it was not for Native Hawaiians. In support of its distortion of the historic record, footnote 8 of the Opinion asserts that lI[a]t the time of its annexation, Hawaii was not a homogenous society, but was composed of native Hawaiians, Americans, English, Chinese, Japanese, and other ethnic groups,"

10 Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 236 (1974) (the "distinctive obligation of trust incumbent upon the government in its dealings with these dependent and sometimes exploited people. II

11 See, ~., the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act, P.L. 102-396, 106 Stat. 1948 (1992), codified in 42 U.S.C. sees. 11701-14. Senate Report 102-309 accompanying the bill lists forty-four separate congressional enactments (pages 23-27), in addition to the Health Care Act that it was reporting, that provide special benefits to Native Hawaiians as Native Hawaiians or recognizing their special status as Native Hawaiians.

12 Joint Resolution of Annexation (Newlands Resolution), 30 Stat. 750 (July 7, 1898).

13 31 Stat. 141 (1900).

14 Id., section 73 (e) •

5

(

(

procedures when dealing with trust-related issues. 1o

The point is that the trust relationship has many different applications, and the existence of a trust is a separate analysis from the Mitchell II approach. What Congress has said is key in both approaches. with respect to Native Hawaiians, Congress has been quite clear that a trust responsibility exists between the United states and Native Hawaiians. 11

II. ~LAWS IN TBB OPINION

A. The opinion Ignores the Significance of the 1898 Newlands Resolution and the 1900 organic Act.

Although the Solicitor refers in passing to the Joint Resolution of Annexation,12 and to the Hawaii Organic Act,13 the Opinion fails to focus on the provision in both enactments that establish a separate legal regime for the lands acquired by the United states through annexation, and reserves the revenue and proceeds from these lands "for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Territory of Hawaii."14 This quoted phrase must factually and logically be read to refer to the native people of the Islands. The quoted phrase is a foundation of the trust responsibility recognized and accepted by the united states. The Opinion seems to take the view that whatever trust may have been established it was not for Native Hawaiians. In support of its distortion of the historic record, footnote 8 of the Opinion asserts that lI[a]t the time of its annexation, Hawaii was not a homogenous society, but was composed of native Hawaiians, Americans, English, Chinese, Japanese, and other ethnic groups,"

10 Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 236 (1974) (the "distinctive obligation of trust incumbent upon the government in its dealings with these dependent and sometimes exploited people. II

11 See, ~., the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act, P.L. 102-396, 106 Stat. 1948 (1992), codified in 42 U.S.C. sees. 11701-14. Senate Report 102-309 accompanying the bill lists forty-four separate congressional enactments (pages 23-27), in addition to the Health Care Act that it was reporting, that provide special benefits to Native Hawaiians as Native Hawaiians or recognizing their special status as Native Hawaiians.

12 Joint Resolution of Annexation (Newlands Resolution), 30 Stat. 750 (July 7, 1898).

13 31 Stat. 141 (1900).

14 Id., section 73 (e) •

5


(

(

citing Volume I of the 1983 Native Hawaiians study Commission Report. In fact, on page 69 of the cited report, the authors point out that the 1900 census may have been inaccurate in several respects. More fundamentally, the presence of the different foreign nationals is beside the point. The large numbers of Japanese and Chinese who had been brought to the Islands were not part of the "polity" of Hawaii; they were not citizens of the Kingdom or the Republic, and for the most part were not eligible to become naturalized citizens of the united states. In 1900 only those children of the foreign nationals who were born in Hawaii could be considered citizens, and these were few in number. From any realistic perspective, factually and legally, the language in the Resolution and the Organic Act, refers to the native people of the Islands.

B. The Opinion Ignores the Legislative History of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.

The Opinion states (at page 7) that the argument in support of the united states recognizing its trust obligation to Native Hawaiians at the time of the enactment of the Hawaiian Homes Commission rests primarily on a single sentence of Franklin Lane, then the Secretary of the u.s. Department of the Interior. In fact, that powerful sentence does not stand alone, and is amply supported by the full context of the Act's legislative history which indicates that Congress understood exactly what it was doing in providing Native Hawaiians the kind of preferential programs that were also provided to other Native Americans. The conclusion of Congress that Native Hawaiians should be treated like American Indians is reflected in the House Committee Report:

In the opinion of your committee there is no constitutional difficulty whatever involved in setting aside and developing lands of the Territory for native Hawaiians only • • • [T]he legislation is based upon a reasonable and not an arbitrary classification and is thus not unconstitutional class legislation. Further there are numerous congressional precedents for such legislation in previous enactments granting Indians • • • special privileges in obtaining and using the public lands.')

The then Solicitor of the Department of the Interior supported the conclusion of the Committee on Territories of the House of Representatives with an opinion arguing strongly that the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act was constitutional, and that Native Hawaiians were entitled to the same Congressional

15 H. Rep. No. 839, Committee on Territories, 66th Cong., 2d Sess. (1920).

6

(

(

citing Volume I of the 1983 Native Hawaiians study Commission Report. In fact, on page 69 of the cited report, the authors point out that the 1900 census may have been inaccurate in several respects. More fundamentally, the presence of the different foreign nationals is beside the point. The large numbers of Japanese and Chinese who had been brought to the Islands were not part of the "polity" of Hawaii; they were not citizens of the Kingdom or the Republic, and for the most part were not eligible to become naturalized citizens of the united states. In 1900 only those children of the foreign nationals who were born in Hawaii could be considered citizens, and these were few in number. From any realistic perspective, factually and legally, the language in the Resolution and the Organic Act, refers to the native people of the Islands.

B. The Opinion Ignores the Legislative History of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.

The Opinion states (at page 7) that the argument in support of the united states recognizing its trust obligation to Native Hawaiians at the time of the enactment of the Hawaiian Homes Commission rests primarily on a single sentence of Franklin Lane, then the Secretary of the u.s. Department of the Interior. In fact, that powerful sentence does not stand alone, and is amply supported by the full context of the Act's legislative history which indicates that Congress understood exactly what it was doing in providing Native Hawaiians the kind of preferential programs that were also provided to other Native Americans. The conclusion of Congress that Native Hawaiians should be treated like American Indians is reflected in the House Committee Report:

In the opinion of your committee there is no constitutional difficulty whatever involved in setting aside and developing lands of the Territory for native Hawaiians only • • • [T]he legislation is based upon a reasonable and not an arbitrary classification and is thus not unconstitutional class legislation. Further there are numerous congressional precedents for such legislation in previous enactments granting Indians • • • special privileges in obtaining and using the public lands.')

The then Solicitor of the Department of the Interior supported the conclusion of the Committee on Territories of the House of Representatives with an opinion arguing strongly that the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act was constitutional, and that Native Hawaiians were entitled to the same Congressional

15 H. Rep. No. 839, Committee on Territories, 66th Cong., 2d Sess. (1920).

6


(

protection received by other Native Americans. 16

C. The Opinion Ignores the Clear statement of Congress on Trust status.

As noted earlier, pursuant to the Constitution's grant of plenary power to Congress in relations with indigenous people, Congress is the key branch in determining whether a trust has been created. The clearest congressional statement, to date, is contained in the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act of 1992. 17 The "Findings" of this Act18 state explicitly that a trust relationship exists between the united states and the Native Hawaiian people. Among the "Findings" of Congress listed in this bill are the following:

(12) Through the Newlands Resolution and the 1900 Organic Act, the United states Congress received 1.75 million acres of lands formerly owned by the Crown and Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and exempted the lands from then existing public land laws of the United states by mandating that the revenue and proceeds from these lands be "used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for education and other public purposes", thereby estahlishinq a special trust relationship between the United states and the inhabitants of Hawaii.

(13) In 1921, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 which designated 200,000 acres of the ceded public lands for exclusive homesteading by Native Hawaiians, thereby affir.minq the trust relationship between the United states and the Native Hawaiians, as expressed by then secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane who was cited in the Committee Report of the united states House of Representatives Committee on Territories as stating, "One thing that impressed me • • .was the fact that the natives of the islands who are our wards, I should say,

16 See Herman Doi, Legal Aspects of the Hawaiian Homes Program, 43 (Hawaii Legislative Reference Bureau Report 1a (1964) citing Organic Act of the Territory of Hawaii: Hearings on Rehabilitation and Colonization of Hawaiians and Other Proposed Amendments and on the Proposed Transfer of the Buildings on the Federal Leprosy Investigation Station at Kalawao on the Island of Molokai Before the House Committee on Territories, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., 130-131 (1920».

17 Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act, supra note 11.

18 Id., 42 U.S.C. sec. 11701.

7

(

protection received by other Native Americans. 16

C. The Opinion Ignores the Clear statement of Congress on Trust status.

As noted earlier, pursuant to the Constitution's grant of plenary power to Congress in relations with indigenous people, Congress is the key branch in determining whether a trust has been created. The clearest congressional statement, to date, is contained in the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act of 1992. 17 The "Findings" of this Act18 state explicitly that a trust relationship exists between the united states and the Native Hawaiian people. Among the "Findings" of Congress listed in this bill are the following:

(12) Through the Newlands Resolution and the 1900 Organic Act, the United states Congress received 1.75 million acres of lands formerly owned by the Crown and Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and exempted the lands from then existing public land laws of the United states by mandating that the revenue and proceeds from these lands be "used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for education and other public purposes", thereby estahlishinq a special trust relationship between the United states and the inhabitants of Hawaii.

(13) In 1921, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 which designated 200,000 acres of the ceded public lands for exclusive homesteading by Native Hawaiians, thereby affir.minq the trust relationship between the United states and the Native Hawaiians, as expressed by then secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane who was cited in the Committee Report of the united states House of Representatives Committee on Territories as stating, "One thing that impressed me • • .was the fact that the natives of the islands who are our wards, I should say,

16 See Herman Doi, Legal Aspects of the Hawaiian Homes Program, 43 (Hawaii Legislative Reference Bureau Report 1a (1964) citing Organic Act of the Territory of Hawaii: Hearings on Rehabilitation and Colonization of Hawaiians and Other Proposed Amendments and on the Proposed Transfer of the Buildings on the Federal Leprosy Investigation Station at Kalawao on the Island of Molokai Before the House Committee on Territories, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., 130-131 (1920».

17 Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act, supra note 11.

18 Id., 42 U.S.C. sec. 11701.

7


(~

(

and for whom in a sense we are trustees, are falling off rapidly in numbers and many of them are in poverty ....

(16) Under the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the admission of the state of Hawaii into the Union", approved March 18, 1959 (73 stat. 4), the United states transferred responsibility for administration over portions of the ceded public lands trust not retained by the United states to the state of Hawaii but reaffirmed the trust relationship which existed between the united states and the Hawaiian people by retaining the legal responsibility of the state for the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians under section 5(f) of the Act .•••

•

(18) In furtherance of the trust responsibility for the betterment of the conditions of Bative Hawaiians, the United states has established a program for the provision of comprehensive health promotion and disease prevention services to maintain and improve the health status of the Hawaiian people.

(20) The United states has also recognized and reaffirmed the trust relationship to the Bawaiian people through legislation which authorizes the provision of services to Native Hawaiians •••• (emphasis added).

Then, in the Declaration of Policy of this Act, Congress explicitly states that "it is the policy of the United states, in fulfillment of its special responsibilities and legal obligations to the indigenous people of Hawaii resulting from the unique and historical relationship between the United states and the Government of the indigenous people of Hawaii" to address the health care need of Native Hawaiians (emphasis added).

The failure of the opinion to address the significance of this 1992 statement by Congress, which under the Constitution has plenary power in this area, illustrates the inadequate and misleading analysis in the Opinion.

D. The opinion Fails to Acknowledge That Native Hawaiians Are Native Americans and Thus Are Entitled to the Same Protections and Special status as other Native Americans.

The opinion (on page 4) argues that Native Hawaiians are one

8

(~

(

and for whom in a sense we are trustees, are falling off rapidly in numbers and many of them are in poverty ....

(16) Under the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the admission of the state of Hawaii into the Union", approved March 18, 1959 (73 stat. 4), the United states transferred responsibility for administration over portions of the ceded public lands trust not retained by the United states to the state of Hawaii but reaffirmed the trust relationship which existed between the united states and the Hawaiian people by retaining the legal responsibility of the state for the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians under section 5(f) of the Act .•••

•

(18) In furtherance of the trust responsibility for the betterment of the conditions of Bative Hawaiians, the United states has established a program for the provision of comprehensive health promotion and disease prevention services to maintain and improve the health status of the Hawaiian people.

(20) The United states has also recognized and reaffirmed the trust relationship to the Bawaiian people through legislation which authorizes the provision of services to Native Hawaiians •••• (emphasis added).

Then, in the Declaration of Policy of this Act, Congress explicitly states that "it is the policy of the United states, in fulfillment of its special responsibilities and legal obligations to the indigenous people of Hawaii resulting from the unique and historical relationship between the United states and the Government of the indigenous people of Hawaii" to address the health care need of Native Hawaiians (emphasis added).

The failure of the opinion to address the significance of this 1992 statement by Congress, which under the Constitution has plenary power in this area, illustrates the inadequate and misleading analysis in the Opinion.

D. The opinion Fails to Acknowledge That Native Hawaiians Are Native Americans and Thus Are Entitled to the Same Protections and Special status as other Native Americans.

The opinion (on page 4) argues that Native Hawaiians are one

8


(

of the many ethnic groups that make up our pluralistic country, and thus that they are not entitled to any legal relationship with the federal government "different from the relationship the government has with its other citizens." The 0.pinion (pages 9-10) attempts to distinguish Morton v. Mancari,1 and the line of cases that recognize a special legal status for Native Americans, by arguing that Native Hawaiians are not "a distinct sovereignty. ,,20 Absent this distinct sovereignty, the opinion argues that Native Hawaiians do not have the "unique governmentto-government relationship • • • that is the basis of the united states responsibilities towards Indians."

To cite Price v. state of Hawaii for such a far reaching proposition is, however, misleading. Price is a case that relates to a small group or band of Hawaiians, who made a failed claim that they met the federal recognition standards designed to determine which groups of Indians were eligible for federal recognition by the Executive Branch as Indian tribes. The claim of Native Hawaiians as a whole for sovereign status stands on an entirely different and stronger footing.

Federal recognition can occur by either congressional or executive branch action. Ratified treaties are a primary example of congressional recognition. Treaties, such as those entered into by the united states and the Kingdom of Hawaii and ratified by the Congress in the 19th century, are examples of treaties that constitute congressional recognition.

The Native Hawaiians, therefore, may have a greater claim than soine Indian tribes to be recognized as a "distinct sovereign" because they were clearly recognized as an independent member of the family of nations until their government was illegally overthrown 100 years ago.

strong policy reasons support granting special and separate status to native peoples, and providing programs for these people that are not provided generally to ethnic groups or racial minorities in the United states:

First, all ethnic groups except for native peoples (and blacks) agreed voluntarily to participate in the multi-ethnic society that we have in the united states. Every other immigrant group came to the united states understanding that this new country consisted of a multi-ethnic community and implicitly agreed to

19 417 U.S. 535 (1971).

20 The opinion cites Price v. state of Hawaii, 764 F.2d 623, 627 (9th Cir. 1985), to support this proposition.

9

(

of the many ethnic groups that make up our pluralistic country, and thus that they are not entitled to any legal relationship with the federal government "different from the relationship the government has with its other citizens." The 0.pinion (pages 9-10) attempts to distinguish Morton v. Mancari,1 and the line of cases that recognize a special legal status for Native Americans, by arguing that Native Hawaiians are not "a distinct sovereignty. ,,20 Absent this distinct sovereignty, the opinion argues that Native Hawaiians do not have the "unique governmentto-government relationship • • • that is the basis of the united states responsibilities towards Indians."

To cite Price v. state of Hawaii for such a far reaching proposition is, however, misleading. Price is a case that relates to a small group or band of Hawaiians, who made a failed claim that they met the federal recognition standards designed to determine which groups of Indians were eligible for federal recognition by the Executive Branch as Indian tribes. The claim of Native Hawaiians as a whole for sovereign status stands on an entirely different and stronger footing.

Federal recognition can occur by either congressional or executive branch action. Ratified treaties are a primary example of congressional recognition. Treaties, such as those entered into by the united states and the Kingdom of Hawaii and ratified by the Congress in the 19th century, are examples of treaties that constitute congressional recognition.

The Native Hawaiians, therefore, may have a greater claim than soine Indian tribes to be recognized as a "distinct sovereign" because they were clearly recognized as an independent member of the family of nations until their government was illegally overthrown 100 years ago.

strong policy reasons support granting special and separate status to native peoples, and providing programs for these people that are not provided generally to ethnic groups or racial minorities in the United states:

First, all ethnic groups except for native peoples (and blacks) agreed voluntarily to participate in the multi-ethnic society that we have in the united states. Every other immigrant group came to the united states understanding that this new country consisted of a multi-ethnic community and implicitly agreed to

19 417 U.S. 535 (1971).

20 The opinion cites Price v. state of Hawaii, 764 F.2d 623, 627 (9th Cir. 1985), to support this proposition.

9


(

participate in such a culture. The native people made no such commitment. They were never asked if they wanted to participate in our melting pot and they have never specifically agreed to do so. • • •

Second, and equally important, native peoples have no "mother culture" elsewhere to which they may tie themselves. Every other ethnic group in the United states can look to some other location where their historical and cultural traditions are maintained •••• Native peoples, on the other hand, have no place to look for this protection ••• except their place of origin in the United states. If they are not permitted to maintain some unique and special status here, their culture and traditions will be lost forever ••••

Finally, native peoples frequently have strong claims to reparations and land, based on treaties and other early dealings with the federal government. Preferences granted to native Americans are, therefore sometimes viewed as partial responses based on obligations owed these peoples. 21

These reasons apply to Native Hawaiians just as strongly as they apply to other Native Americans, and it would violate our concepts of fairness to deny Native Hawaiians the right to be treated by the United states as native peoples. Federal courts that have examined ambiguous statutes regarding natives have interpreted them broadly to include additional native groups, assuming that Congress intended to treat all native groups similarly situated in a similar manner.22

Those courts that have examined the status of Native Hawaiians have instinctively drawn an analogy between them and other Native Americans. In Ahuna v. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands,a the Hawaii Supreme Court said:

Essentially, we are dealing with relationships between the government and aboriginal people. Reason thus dictates that we draw the analogy between native Hawaiian homesteaders and other native Americans.

21 Jon M. Van Dyke, The Constitutionality of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 7 U. Haw. L. Rev. 63,91 (1985).

22 See, ~, Pence v. Kleppe, 529 F.2d 135, 139 n.S (9th Cir. 1976); united states v. Native Village of Unalakleet, 411 F.2d 1255 (Ct.Cl. 1969); Alaska v. Annette Island Packing Co., 289 F. 671 (9th Cir. 1923); Alaska Fisheries v. United states, 248 U.S. 78 (1918), aff'g 240 F. 274 (9th Cir. 1917).

23 64 Haw. 327, 339, 640 P.2d 1161 (1982).

10

(

participate in such a culture. The native people made no such commitment. They were never asked if they wanted to participate in our melting pot and they have never specifically agreed to do so. • • •

Second, and equally important, native peoples have no "mother culture" elsewhere to which they may tie themselves. Every other ethnic group in the United states can look to some other location where their historical and cultural traditions are maintained •••• Native peoples, on the other hand, have no place to look for this protection ••• except their place of origin in the United states. If they are not permitted to maintain some unique and special status here, their culture and traditions will be lost forever ••••

Finally, native peoples frequently have strong claims to reparations and land, based on treaties and other early dealings with the federal government. Preferences granted to native Americans are, therefore sometimes viewed as partial responses based on obligations owed these peoples. 21

These reasons apply to Native Hawaiians just as strongly as they apply to other Native Americans, and it would violate our concepts of fairness to deny Native Hawaiians the right to be treated by the United states as native peoples. Federal courts that have examined ambiguous statutes regarding natives have interpreted them broadly to include additional native groups, assuming that Congress intended to treat all native groups similarly situated in a similar manner.22

Those courts that have examined the status of Native Hawaiians have instinctively drawn an analogy between them and other Native Americans. In Ahuna v. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands,a the Hawaii Supreme Court said:

Essentially, we are dealing with relationships between the government and aboriginal people. Reason thus dictates that we draw the analogy between native Hawaiian homesteaders and other native Americans.

21 Jon M. Van Dyke, The Constitutionality of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 7 U. Haw. L. Rev. 63,91 (1985).

22 See, ~, Pence v. Kleppe, 529 F.2d 135, 139 n.S (9th Cir. 1976); united states v. Native Village of Unalakleet, 411 F.2d 1255 (Ct.Cl. 1969); Alaska v. Annette Island Packing Co., 289 F. 671 (9th Cir. 1923); Alaska Fisheries v. United states, 248 U.S. 78 (1918), aff'g 240 F. 274 (9th Cir. 1917).

23 64 Haw. 327, 339, 640 P.2d 1161 (1982).

10


(

(

And in Naliielua v. state of Hawaii, 24 the u.s. District Court for the District of Hawaii reached the same conclusion:

Plaintiffs argue that the plethora of authority relating to Indian legislation does not apply to native Hawaiians because they are not "Indians." Although Hawaiians are not identical to American Indians ••• the court finds that for purposes of equal protection analysis, the distinction plaintiffs seek to draw is meritless.

Native Hawaiians are people indigenous to the state of Hawaii, just as American Indians are indigenous to the mainland united states. [The court then quoted from Pence v. Kleppe, and Ahuna, supra.]

This court finds applicable the clear body of law surrounding preferences given American Indians and finds that the united states' commitment to the native people of this state, demonstrated through the Admission Act and the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, does not create a suspect classification which offends the constitution.

In light of these uncontradicted cases, it is hard to comprehend how the Opinion could reach the conclusion that Native Hawaiians should not receive the protections afforded other Native Americans.

E. The opinion Misinterprets and Misapplies the Recent Ninth Circuit Cases Concerning Native Hawaiian Rights.

The opinion is sprinkled with references to recent Ninth Circuit cases, but mischaracterizes these cases with regard to the question of the trust obligation owed by the United states to Native Hawaiians. In the second opinion in Keaukaha-Panaewa Community Association v. Hawaiian Homes commission,25 for instance, the court says explicitly that:

••• while the management and disposition of the home lands was given over to the state of Hawaii with the incorporation of the Commission Act into the state constitution, the trust obligation is rooted in federal law, and the power to enforce that obligation is contained in federal law •••• Congress imposed the trust obligation as a condition of statehood and as a "comp~ct with the united states • ,,26

Similarly, in the Price cases the Ninth Circuit concluded

24 795 F. Supp. 1009, 1012-13 (D.Haw. 1990).

~ 739 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 1984).

26 Id. at 1472 (citations omitted, emphasis added).

11

(

(

And in Naliielua v. state of Hawaii, 24 the u.s. District Court for the District of Hawaii reached the same conclusion:

Plaintiffs argue that the plethora of authority relating to Indian legislation does not apply to native Hawaiians because they are not "Indians." Although Hawaiians are not identical to American Indians ••• the court finds that for purposes of equal protection analysis, the distinction plaintiffs seek to draw is meritless.

Native Hawaiians are people indigenous to the state of Hawaii, just as American Indians are indigenous to the mainland united states. [The court then quoted from Pence v. Kleppe, and Ahuna, supra.]

This court finds applicable the clear body of law surrounding preferences given American Indians and finds that the united states' commitment to the native people of this state, demonstrated through the Admission Act and the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, does not create a suspect classification which offends the constitution.

In light of these uncontradicted cases, it is hard to comprehend how the Opinion could reach the conclusion that Native Hawaiians should not receive the protections afforded other Native Americans.

E. The opinion Misinterprets and Misapplies the Recent Ninth Circuit Cases Concerning Native Hawaiian Rights.

The opinion is sprinkled with references to recent Ninth Circuit cases, but mischaracterizes these cases with regard to the question of the trust obligation owed by the United states to Native Hawaiians. In the second opinion in Keaukaha-Panaewa Community Association v. Hawaiian Homes commission,25 for instance, the court says explicitly that:

••• while the management and disposition of the home lands was given over to the state of Hawaii with the incorporation of the Commission Act into the state constitution, the trust obligation is rooted in federal law, and the power to enforce that obligation is contained in federal law •••• Congress imposed the trust obligation as a condition of statehood and as a "comp~ct with the united states • ,,26

Similarly, in the Price cases the Ninth Circuit concluded

24 795 F. Supp. 1009, 1012-13 (D.Haw. 1990).

~ 739 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 1984).

26 Id. at 1472 (citations omitted, emphasis added).

11


(

that the federal courts had the ultimate responsibility to determine whether the trust obligations of the public land trust that are owed to Native Hawaiians are being properly followed. 27

These decisions thus recognize the historical and continuing responsibilities of the federal government toward Native Hawaiians and they certainly do not undercut the view that the united states has a continuing trust responsibility to Native Hawaiians.

III. CONCLUSION

The united states has a trust responsibility to Native Hawaiians for the same reasons it has a trust responsibility to other Native Americans. Through its treaty relationships, its course of dealings with the native people of Hawaii, and·through numerous federal statutes, the United states has established and acknowledged a trust relationship with Native Hawaiians.

The precise details of the United states obligations to Native Hawaiians have not yet been defined. Among the elements that now need to be addressed by Congress are resolving the land claims of Native Hawaiians, resolving the claims of Native Hawaiians arising out of the management of the Home Lands Trust, and restoration of self-determination and self-governance for Native Hawaiians.

27 See, ~, Price v. state of Hawaii, 921 F.2d 950, 955, 956, 959 (9th Cir. 1990); and Price v. state of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 710 (9th Cir. 1991).

12 (

that the federal courts had the ultimate responsibility to determine whether the trust obligations of the public land trust that are owed to Native Hawaiians are being properly followed. 27

These decisions thus recognize the historical and continuing responsibilities of the federal government toward Native Hawaiians and they certainly do not undercut the view that the united states has a continuing trust responsibility to Native Hawaiians.

III. CONCLUSION

The united states has a trust responsibility to Native Hawaiians for the same reasons it has a trust responsibility to other Native Americans. Through its treaty relationships, its course of dealings with the native people of Hawaii, and·through numerous federal statutes, the United states has established and acknowledged a trust relationship with Native Hawaiians.

The precise details of the United states obligations to Native Hawaiians have not yet been defined. Among the elements that now need to be addressed by Congress are resolving the land claims of Native Hawaiians, resolving the claims of Native Hawaiians arising out of the management of the Home Lands Trust, and restoration of self-determination and self-governance for Native Hawaiians.

27 See, ~, Price v. state of Hawaii, 921 F.2d 950, 955, 956, 959 (9th Cir. 1990); and Price v. state of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 710 (9th Cir. 1991).

12


scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu · .... ...: ... ol / 2;i / 05 'fur.: 15:35 fax 808nq418b8 ofr....

Documents