Slavery as an industrial system

by H. J. Nieboer

Gardiner gives an elaborate account of the regulation of landed property in Rotuma: “No private property in land formerly existed, it was all vested in the pure for the time [[316]]being of the hoag[36]; the district generally had rights over it. It usually consisted of four kinds: bush, swamp, coast, and proprietary water in the boat channel; common to the hoag, too, were wells and graveyards. Every member of the hoag knew its boundaries, which consisted of lines between certain trees or prominent rocks, posts, and even stone walls. In the bush land every hoag possessed property; it lay on the slopes of hills and in valleys between at some slight distance from the coast, from which it was separated by a stone wall, running round the whole island. On it taro, yams, bananas, plantains, and a few cocoanut trees were grown for food, while the paths into it and through it were planted with the Tahitian chestnut, the fava tree, and the sagopalm. The Tahitian chestnut and fava trees were favourite boundary marks owing to their size and longevity. Swamp land is only possessed by Noatau, Oinafa, Matusa, and Itomotu. It is low-lying land, on extensive beach sand flats, which exist in these districts. The tide always keeps it wet, percolating through the sand, and in it is grown the papoi, or broka, against famine. The possession of a good-sized strip always caused and gave to the hoag a position of importance; its boundaries were stones at the sides. Coast land lay outside the surrounding wall, to which the hoag had a strip from and including the foreshore. On it as near as possible to the coast the house or houses of the hoag were placed, while the rest of the land was planted with cocoanuts for drinking purposes. Hifo trees are stated to have been planted formerly to show the boundaries, but they more often now consist of stones or cocoanut trees, the ownership of which is a constant source of dispute. Districts and even villages were sharply marked off by walls down to the beach. All had the right of turning out their pigs on this land, and each hoag had to keep in proper repair the parts of the wall adjacent to it. Each had, however, usually an enclosure on its own land for its own pigs, when young. The proprietary water ran from the foreshore to the reef, a continuation of the strip on shore. At Noatau and Matusa, where it is very broad, it was to some extent cross-divided. It consists of a sand flat covered by 10–12 feet of [[317]]water at high-tide. On it fish of all sorts are caught by traps and various devices, and shell-fish are gathered. As these form no inconsiderable portion of the daily food, indeed the principal animal food, the value of this property was always very considerable. The reef—i.e. the part on the outside exposed at the low tide—was the common property of all. It was explained to me that fish, crabs, etc., cannot be cultivated there, owing to the heavy breaking seas, but are sent up by the atua, or spirits.” “Any land, not being planted, is willingly lent to another hoag on condition of two baskets of first-fruits of each patch being brought to the pure, but cocoanut trees on the land cannot be touched by the tenant, nor is he entitled to their usufruct. If a hoag owns land in one district, but lives in another, first-fruits are always paid to the chief of the district, in which its lands lie. Any encroachment on the land was very vigorously resented, it was usually referred to the district chief to settle, and his decision loyally adhered to.” “If he hoag, he has the entire usufruct of these trees during his lifetime, quite independently of the apportionment of the land below them for planting.” We see that the idea of landownership is most fully developed here. During the 19^th century the population has much diminished, and so “most of the hoag have far more land than they can cultivate.” But formerly it was otherwise. “Examining the remains of planting, it appears as if the whole island, wherever practicable, was at one time tilled. The land, where there is a good and deep soil, is, and was, no doubt tilled regularly from year to year, while the rocky country was planted more or less in rotation with yams and kava. Even on the steepest slopes, there are signs of clearing, the summit alone being left crowned by the hifo. The bottoms of the craters of many hills used to be planted too; in the crater of Sol Satarua, the lulu as it is termed, there are still bananas growing, but planted so long ago that the fact that it had a lulu at all was almost forgotten”[37]. According to Hale, food was not always abundant on this island; therefore the natives liked to engage themselves as sailors on [[318]]whaling-ships, until they had earned enough to buy a piece of land[38]. In Hale’s time land was evidently not so abundant as it is now that the population is so rapidly declining.

In Tahiti “every portion of land had its respective owner; and even the distinct trees on the land had sometimes different proprietors, and a tree, and the land on which it grew, different owners.” What our informant further tells us of the present state of things as compared with that of earlier times, shows a remarkable likeness to Gardiner’s statement about Rotuma. Ellis states that “an extent of soil capable of cultivation, and other resources, are adequate to the maintenance of a population tenfold increased above its present numbers.” But a great depopulation has taken place in the course of years. “In the bottom of every valley, even to the recesses in the mountains, on the sides of the inferior hills, and on the brows of almost every promontory, in each of the islands, monuments of former generations are still met with in great abundance. Stone pavements of their dwellings and court-yards, foundations of houses, and remains of family temples, are numerous. Occasionally they are found in exposed situations, but generally amidst thickets of brushwood or groves of trees, some of which are of the largest growth. All these relics are of the same kind as those observed among the natives at the time of their discovery, evidently proving that they belong to the same race, though to a more populous era of their history. The stone tools occasionally found near these vestiges of antiquity demonstrate the same lamentable fact.” According to Moerenhout “landed properties constituted the principal, or rather the only wealth of these people; therefore the power of the chiefs always depended on the quantity and quality of their lands; moreover, the more people they could support, the more sure they were of having subjects.” This writer does not, however, enter into many details[39].

In Hawaii four social ranks existed. The members of the third rank, according to Ellis, “are generally called haku aina, proprietors of the land.” “In the fourth rank may be included [[319]]the small farmers, who rent from ten to twenty or thirty acres of land; the mechanics, … indeed all the labouring classes, those who attach themselves to some chief or farmer, and labour on his land for their food and clothing, as well as those who cultivate small portions of land for their own advantage.” “Sometimes the poor people take a piece of land, on condition of cultivating a given portion for the chief, and the remainder for themselves, making a fresh agreement after every crop.” Hale states that formerly there were no landed proprietors; all the land was “the property of the king, and leased by him to inferior chiefs (hatu aina, landlords), who underlet it to the people; as the king, however, though absolute in theory, was aware that his power depended very much on the co-operation of the high chiefs, they became, to a certain degree, partakers in his authority.” Remy tells us that the land belonged exclusively to the great chiefs, who leased it and received considerable rents. Chamisso and Marcuse equally state that the land belonged to the chiefs[40].

In Rarotonga, according to Gerland, a man’s power depends on the quantity of land he owns. Meinicke states that there are four social classes. The third class is composed of the landed proprietors; the lowest class are those who own no land and live as tenants on the estates of the nobles[41].

On the Marquesas Islands, according to Gerland, three ranks formerly existed: chiefs, landholders, and the common people. The landholders were the most powerful class; the common people were obliged to pay them a tribute. Yet those who owned most land were not always most respected, and even of the common people some owned land. Meinicke, however, states that the whole of the land is the property of the nobles. Hale, after speaking of the nobles, adds that the rest of the people were the landholders and their relatives and tenants[42].

In Mangarewa (belonging to the Paumotu group) the nobles [[320]]were the proprietors of the soil; they often let out their lands to the third class, the common people[43].

Meinicke tells us that in the Manahiki group the cocoanut trees and the lagoons (for fishing purposes) were private property[44].

In an article, quoted by Schurtz, it is stated that in the Tokelau group the land belongs exclusively to the nobles. Lister, speaking of Fakaofu or Bowditch Island (in the Tokelau group), says: “Two islets belonged … to the king. Two others were common property, and the rest were divided up as the property of individuals”[45]. So it seems that in this part of the group there was land which had not yet been appropriated.

In the Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman groups all the land belongs to the chiefs and the nobles, the common people having no landed property[46].

Tregear has the following notes on landed property in New Zealand: “Land was held primarily by tribal right; but within this tribal right each free warrior of the tribe had particular rights over some portion. He could not part with the land because it was not his to give or sell, but he had better rights to certain portions than others of his tribe. He would claim by having the bones of his father or grandfather there, or that they once rested there; or by the fact of his navel-string having been cut there; or by his blood having been shed on it; or by having been cursed there; or by having helped in the war party which took the land; or by his wife being owner by descent; or by having been invited by the owners to live there.” Thomson states that “all free persons, male and female, constituting the nation were proprietors of the soil.” The chiefs were the greatest landholders. “Conquest and occupation gave titles to land. The right of fishing in rivers and sea belonged to the adjoining landed proprietor. Amongst the families of each tribe there are also laws regarding landed property. Thus the cultivation of a portion of forest land renders it the property of those who cleared it, and this right descended from generation to generation.… It was illegal for one family to [[321]]plant in another’s clearing without permission”. “The independence and social happiness of the people were chiefly caused by cultivating their own lands.” According to Taylor, each tribe had its own district; “each member can cultivate any portion of it he thinks fit, if unoccupied, or if it has not been previously cultivated by another.” Polack says: “Possession is obtained by planting a portion (however small) of the soil, and reaping the same”[47].