The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1903-11-11
THE FIVE CENT
FARE QUESTION
DtCHEY CLAIMS THE RAPID
TRANSIT CAN CHARGE ONLY
FIVE CENTS FOR a FIVE CENTS
RIDE.

Additional points in Judge Dickey's
brief in his suit to enforce his claim as
to the duty of the Rapid Transit Com
pany in the matter of transfers, are as
follows:
If the line of cars in which plaintiff
rode from McCully street to Alexander
street ran from that point UP Manoa
and the company did not run cars from
Punahou street, and Wilder Avenue to
town, the whole of defendants argu-
ment would be gone and yet the trip
that plaintiff took remain the same.
If a line of cars ran from Wilder Ave-
nue. and Alexander Street to Diamond
Head then the fare for ride in
straight line on McCully street from
| Waikiki Road to Beretania street
would be ten cents because after
changing cars at King street the pas
senger from Waikiki Road would be
on a return trip.
Surely the Legislature did not intend
! to make the rata of fare thus depend
ant on the CompanY's own say so.
| Plaintiffs ride speaks for itself. What
| he might have done if he had made
another trip, getting on the first car
| at Liliha street and staying on the Sec
ond should not affect the fare for the
trip he did take. The company should
not have charged nm more than five
cents before he had finished a five cent
ride.
After the bringing of the first case
of Dickey VS. Tramways 10 H. 1913 above
| referred to the Hawaiian Tramways
Co. discontinued carrying passengers
! In a single car over the route involved
| in that case and compelled them to
change cars at Fort street and Queen
street. In the case of Dickey VS.. Ha-
waiian Tramways Co. 10 II. 3S7 it was
held that the statute did not give the
| right to the company 10 treat any one
line as a single road.
| The court says:
THE statute does not give the right
to the defendant to treat any one line
as single road. The statute is clear
and not ambiguous, and shows that a
passenger travelling on the cars within
the limits stated by said Section 8
Chap. "a can only be charged fare of
five cents. The company must reg
ulate it's business in accordance with
the terms of the statute granting it's
franchise, and it has power and right
to make reasonable regulations for the
government and carrying of its pas
sengers and the collection of fares and
the conduct of it's business. But the
fact that it neglects or refuses to
make suitable regulations to protect
itself against fraud by passengers, does
not permit it to charge a fare in eX-
cess of that allowed by law. 1t being
within it's power to carry passengers
within the specified boundaries on a
continuous trip, it cannot by a mere
division of this trip by causing a
change of cars at any particular point
acquire the right to make d second
charge of fare for the same trip.
1t is clear that the company was en-
titled to charge but 'one fare of five
cents in this case BY a mere change
of cars the company does not become
entitled to an anditioned fare. per-
son travelling on the cars of the de-
PENDANT, however, must be a passen-
ger and must make a continuous triI
so far as practicable and this from one
point within the limits specified to an
other point therein, and he is not en-
titled to a return upon the road for
the one fare for it would not be the
same trip"
In Hawaiian Tramways Co. VS.
SturdeVant 10 H. 597 the claim was
made by the Hawaiian Tramways Co
that its limitation of fares did not APP
ply to lines crossing each other al
right angles where there was nc
track connection enabling the COM
pany 10 run a single car from one
line to the other. The Court says: (p.
599)
THE rate OF fare does not depend up
on the way the TramWays Company
lays out its system of tracks, or runs
its cars, or, on what connections il
may see fit to make, but it is fixed by
the statute granting the franchise"
! This last decision was rendered Jan
| uary 26, 1897. The franchise of the
Honolulu Rapid Transit and Land Co
was granted July Z, 1898. In it the
limits within which a five cent fare
must be charged are far more extensive
than in that of the TramWays Com
pany. From MOanalua TO Diamond
Head is three times as far as from the
Industrial School to Punahou Street
AS the old company had no right by
laying out its system of tracks in any
particular way to affect the rate OF
fare, the legislature which reduced
fares should not be presumed to grant
that right to the new railway. The
result would be as shown by this case
to allow the company to charge ten
cents for a short ride around a corner
by arbitrarily making a rule of its
own that the Punahou and King street
lines are and are not connecting lines
at one and the same time in accord
ance with the direction in which pas
senger on the King street line is
travelling.
Defendant urges that if a passenger
Is allowed a trip such as plaintiffs for
five cents that it would be impossible
to prevent passengers by getting con-
tinued transfers from riding round all
the time between Liliha and McCully
street on the King and Punahou lines.
passenger would have no right to
do this. AS was said in Dickey " Ha-
waiian Tramways supra "A person
travelling on the cars......must make
AN. trip. from one point within
the limits specified to another point
therein" 1t might be prevented by a
system of slips given passengers to
show where they began their rides
But 1t is not necessary or helpful to
speculate on practical results to the