491 



rental of $451 and runs for ten years from that date, or until 

 February 21, 1920. The lease contains the usual clause provid- 

 ing for the withdrawal of any part or parts of the land demised 

 for homestead, settlement, reclamation, forestry and other pur- 

 poses, and also the following special fencing clause : 



"The Lessee shall construct at his own expense within one 

 year from Proclamation of Forest Reserve, a lawful fence as 

 defined by Section 407, Revised Laws of Hawaii, along the entire 

 boundaries of the land, herein demised, and adjoining the Forest 

 Reserve, and maintain said fence in good repair during the* term 

 of this lease." 



The Makua-Keaau Forest Reserve, which contains parts of the 

 above lands, was set apart by proclamation on June 4, 1913. The 

 holder of Lease No. 730, therefore, had until June 4, 1914, for 

 the construction of the fence, approximately five and a half miles 

 in length, wherever the leased land is adjacent to the Makua- 

 Keaau Forest Reserve. This, to date, he has not done, neither 

 did he build the fence around the Kuaokala Forest Reserve 

 which was required by General Lease No. 739, which he held and 

 which expired on January 1, 1916, and on the land of which he 

 is still allowed by the Land Office to run cattle as a tenant at 

 will. 



Soon after June 4, 1914, my predecessor began to urge the 

 then Land Commissioner to require the holder of Lease No. 730 

 to build this fence and continued his urgings until he resigned, 

 when I took up the cudgel and have urged the present Land 

 Commissioner every few months to enforce this requirement of 

 the lease. All of these efforts have met with no success to date, 

 and I now wish to force the issue. 



Mr. McCandless was fully informed of this fencing require- 

 ment before he bid on the lease by the sentence in the publisiicd 

 notice of sale of the lease, quoted above, and signed the lease 

 with this fencing clause plainly written into it. I, therefore, can- 

 not see how he can have any excuse for not building the fence, 

 neither can I comprehend why the Land Commissioner has not 

 required compliance with this fencing clause, the disregardance of 

 which is sufficient cause for the cancellation of the lease. By 

 not enforcing it, an injustice is done to holders of other leases 

 who have complied with similar fencing clauses. 



The fence should have been built four years ago, and, unless 

 prompt action is taken now, the lease will expire as did the 

 Kuaokala L,ease without the fencing requirement being fulfilled. 



The fence is absolutely necessary for the protection of the 

 native forest in the forest reserve, which is now being damaged 

 by the cattle which wander at will into it from the adjacent leased 

 land. 



I, therefore, have the honor to recommend that in order to 

 expedite matters, a resolution along the following or similar lines 

 be adopted by the Board and that copies be forwarded to the 



