The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-11-12
ANSWER
OF RAPID
TRANSIT
Jurisdiction of the
Federal Court
Denied.
A FEW FACTS
ABOUT TRAMWAYS
Affidavits and Charter of the Com
Pany Set Out.-Chose the
Wrong Remedy.

II HE Honolulu Rapid Transit Com
pany filed a lengthy answer in
= Federal Court yesterday To the
petition of the Hawaiian Tramways
Company for an injunctio to prevent
the laying Of tracks on King street.
The case viii come up for hearing this
morning, Judge Estee having been un-
able 10 take up the matter yesterday
owing TO the argument in the liquor
cases.
The answer of the respondent sets up
the lack of Jurisdiction of the Federal
Court in the present proceedings and
also a previous adjudication in the
supreme Court of Hawaii
Part of the answer sets out the acts
of the legislature in granting the pres
ent franchise of the company. and that
in pursuance of the provisions of such
act the residents of King street along
the disputed right of way petitioned
for a railway on said street, the gov
ernor Of the territory consented to the
laying OF such railway, and following
out the rules and regulations as pre-
scribed, the work on the present track
was begun; and respondent is now con-
structing a street railway along King
street paralleling the railway track of
the plaintiff.
1t is further alleged that the present
franchise was granted with the sane
ton of Congress and the approval of
President Mckinley and that the
legality of it's acts Hereunder. for such
reason, cannot. so far this petitioner
is concerned, be attacked or questioned
in this proceeding, but can only be in
quired into by the granting power. act
ing through its lawful representative,
through direct proceedings brought for
the purpose" For that reason it is al
legged that the Federal Court has no
jurisdiction in the premises.
In paragraph II the respondent al
Ieges that il has already expended the
sum OF $75O.O0O in the construction of
the said railway, has issued and sold its
bonds TO meet such expenditures in the
sum OF $500. 900 and is endeavoring To
find purchasers for further issues OF
$I47. 900, and has contracted with one
Mckee for the sum OF $4,000 for laying
of said tracks. If the injunction is
granted the said respondent will be
prevented from operating it's road and
the greater part of its expenditures will !
be a total loss. and there will be a con- |
sequent depreciation in the value of its !
stocks and bonds, and il would be i'm |
possible to further dispose OF its bonds. !
In paragraph III the fact OF the pre-
sentatiOn OF the case to the Supreme !
Court on an agreed statement of facts
is set out, with the subsequent adjudi- |
cation by that court and the holding OF !
the court that respondent had the right /
to lay the disputed track on King street
The respondent in pursuance of such de-
cision upon the approval OF the Minister
or Interior proceeded to occupy said
street and to lay its tracks without con-
ceaIment and on the 31st day of jan
uary the plaintiff attempted forcibly
TO remove said track and was success
fully and forcibly resisted by defendant
1t is further alleged that the consent OF
the Governor and superintendent OF
Public Works was obtained to the lay
ing Of the tracks upon King street. and
the Hawaiian Tramways Co was noti-
fed Of the intention TO proceed under
such authority. In response 10 this
notice an answer was received from W.
II. Pain in which he said Kindly have
this work done at night so as to inter
fere as little as possible with our traf-
&c and save inconvenience To the travel
ing public
The answer then goes on 10 show
that more than 1.5OO feet of track has
already been constructed from Nuuanu