436 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES. 
in the previous report) were, however, inconsistent with the laws of 
this country, and the act creating the Territory of Hawaii, which went 
into effect June 14, 1900, contained specitic legislation regarding them. 
It was provided that all for which claim had not been made up to June 
14, 1902, should be abolished and the privileges they carried should 
become common property; those which might be proved to be of the 
nature of vested rights should eventually be condemned and opened 
to common use, but the owners would be compensated therefor. 
When the time for action came, on June 14, 1902, the territorial 
government set up the defense that a ‘‘ fishery right” was not a vested 
right, but merely a license, and hence the Territory was not required 
to compensate the owners of such alleged rights for their extinguish- 
ment. Several of the parties entered suit in the lower territorial 
courts and were defeated. Two of the cases—those of the Bishop 
estate for the fishery of Waialae-iki and Samuel M. Damon for the 
fishery of Moanalua—were appealed to the supreme court of the Ter- 
ritory, with the same result as in the lower courts. Mr. Damon there- 
upon carried his case on appeal to the United States Supreme Court, 
where it was argued in March, 1904, and on April 25 of the same year 
the court handed down a decision upholding the contention of Mr. 
Damon, the plaintiff, that a ‘* fishery right” was a vested right. 
The present status of the claims is thus set forth in a paragraph of 
a letter from Mr. Lorrin Andrews, attorney-general of the Territory, 
dated October 8, 1904: 
The decision of the United States Supreme Court has practically precluded us from 
setting up the defense that the parties already suing had not vested rights in the 
property. Weare therefore requiring each person suing to prove his title, as alleged 
in the complaint, upon which we consent that a judgment be entered against the 
Territory, and we will immediately bring condemnation proceedings against such 
established owners of fisheries, so as to obtain the title for the Territory. This will 
probably be done some time before the spring of next year, as there area large 
number of cases, and of necessity we must proceed slowly. 
The abolition of private fishery rights wiped out the greater part of 
the fishery laws previously in force on the islands, and at present the 
following seem to be all that are in effect: 
In 1850, under the heading of ‘‘ Malicious injuries and mischiefs,’’ the ‘‘ destroying, 
cutting, injuring, or impairing the usefulness or value of any fish net,’’ ete., and the 
‘putting of auhuhu or other substance deleterious to fish into any lake, pond, stream, 
or reservoir for the purpose of destroying the fish,’? were made misdemeanors. 
‘‘No person residing without the Kingdom shall take any fish within the harbors, 
streams, reeis, or other waters of the same for the purpose of carrying them for sale, 
or otherwise, to any place without the Kingdom, under penalty of a fine not exceeding 
two hundred dollars, in the discretion of the court.’’ (Civil Code of 1859, Chap. VII, 
Art. V, sec. 386.) 
“Section 1. No person shall use giant powder or any other explosive substance 
in taking fish within or upon any harbors, streams, reeis, or waters within the juris- 
diction of this Kingdom. The possession by fisherman, fish venders, or persons in 
