The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-07-27
Street RAILWAYS
Rights of Rival Lines
Laid Down.
Attorney General Cooper's Opin-
ways and Rapid Transit Cos.


of Attorney General Cooper on me
right of the Hawaiian Tramways Com
pany to lay double tracks on streets .
traversed by its present lines and the /
right of the Rapid Transit Company l
to lay a track along King street from |
the bridge to Victoria street. Ii Is un- |
derstOod that these opinions have been /
adopted by the Executive Council and /
now represent the views of the Gov
eminent in the matter.
Department of the Attorney General. !
Honolulu. July 18th. 1899. ]
To the Executive Council: In re-
gard to the notification of the Hawaii |
an Tramways Co. Ltd. under date of
June 18th, wherein the company states
its intention to convert its line from
a single track 10 a double track on the
various streets in Honolulu where il
is now operating its line of tramways.
| have to say that | am of the opinion
that the Tramways Company is en-
titled by its franchise To- lay and main
tain such double tracks. This opinion
| is based upon the several acts upon
which the franchise was granted.
| In 1884 the first franchise was grant
ed to w. r. Austin and his associates.
| The franchise granted by this act of
the Legislature expired by limitation
of time. The franchise was re-enacted
! by the Legislature of 1886 and was
again re-enacted by the Legislature of
1888, which extended the time for the
completion of the tramway until the
| 18th of September. 1889. Before this
| last mentioned date the Hawaiian
Tramways Company. Limited. had
been organized. and constructed all OF
the lines of track now in operation by
that company: such line. however, be-
ing a single track with the necessary
switches and turnouts.
The question which has been consid-
cred is whether or not the Tramways
company is now entitled to change its
line from single to double tracks. The
limitation of the franchise is controlled
by the seventh subdivision of sec
ton of chapter 81 of the Session Laws
of 1884, as amended by chapter Is OF
the Session Laws of 1856. which is as
follows:
THAT the said railway must be COM
pleted and equipped and ready for pas
lsengers within two years. and If not so
completed within the said two years
then all rights hereby granted shall
terminate and the franchise hereby
granted become void and of no effect
Provided. that for such portions OF said
road as shall at that time be completed
and equipped as above required the
right herein granted shall stand and
be of full force and effect"
The time limit mentioned in this
subdivision of section was extended
by the Laws of 1888 to September 10,
1889. The Tramway Company having
laid its single track with the neces-
sary switches and turnoutS and
equipped the same for public travel be-
fore the 18th day of September. 1889
in my opinion. earned the full benefit
} of the franchise for such portions as
/ had been completed and equipped
l which included the right to- lay .
double as well as single track on the
: streets mentioned in their letter ot
r June >. The franchise being in full
force and effect so far as those street
y. are concerned. authorizes the company
e to lay a double track upon such
= streets at the present time. The fran
chise was not in the alternative to- tn,
9 extent of compelling the company &c
= make its election before the 18th o
September, 1889, but gave the company
its option to lay single track Will
I the necessary switches and turnouts oil
a double track, and having complied
with the requirements OF the statut,
it earned the right to exercise full
force and effect of the franchis,
which includes the right to lay
5 double track.
2 | am, however, of the further opin
= ion that the franchises granted CAV,
d, nothing more than a license to- tn,
- Tramways Company to- occupy tn,
streets mentioned in the franchise
s which, if not awaited of, would no
: hinder the occupation by another com
pany, holding a franchise from tn
Legislature, if no physical diffiCultie
prevented il.
The latter becomes important for tn,
reason that a petition has been re
- ceived from the Honolulu Rapid Tran
sit & Land Co. for permission to- oC
lcupy that portion OF King street from
, the King street bridge crossing Nuu
anu stream to Victoria street. which
would necessitate the laying of a tract
parallel to the Hawaiian Tramway
Company's track on King street be
y tween these points
If The Hawaiian Tramways Compan,
u not having exercised its right to lay
!, double track on King street between
= the points above mentioned. IL appear
TO me that there is no valid reason 70
denying the petition OF the Honolulu
Rapid Transit * Land Company for tn
right TO maintain a track as asked FOL
If in so doing the public safety an
convenience of travel are not materi
ally impaired.
l have expressed this opinion in an
"a swer to the question referred to m
c. by the Executive Council upon the pc
y tition of the Honolulu Rapid Transi
Is & Land Company.
n HENRY E. COOPER.
40 Attorney General.
*
Honolulu II Inlv 10 1900