The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-10-18

can come to no other conclusion as to
that The respondent by it's failure to
contest this point thereby admits it.
It is urged on behalf of respondent
that the "Liliha-Waialae" line is I'M
profitable and for that reason the pub
lie is without a remedy. This conten-
ton to my mind is unsound, inasmuch
as the railway as a whole is admitted
to be profitable.
1t is also urged that mandamus is
the appropriate remedy and not in
junction.
High on extraordinary remedies, at
Section 6, clearly defines these rene
dies and points out their distinguish
ing features as follows: 1T is only
when we come to consider the subject
and purpose of the two writs that the
most striking points of divergence are
presented. An injunction is essential
ly preventive remedy, mandamus
remedial one. The former is usually
employed to prevent future injury,
the latter to redress past grievances.
The functions of an injunction are 10
restrain motion and to enforce mac
ton, those of a mandamus to set in
motion and compel action. In this
sense an injunction may be regarded
as a conservative remedy, manda mus
as an active one. The former pre-
serves matters in statu quo, while the
very object of the latter is to change
the status of affairs and to substi-
tute action for inactivity. The one is,
therefore, positive or remedial
process, the other negative or pre-
ventive one. And since mandamus is
IN no sense a preventive remedy, i
can not take the place of an irJunc-
ton, and will not be employed to re-
strain or prevent an improper inter-
ference with the rights of REALTORS"
Injunction is the appropriate remedy
to prevent a proposed change in the
time schedule of street railway, for
this would be injurious to the public,
if the intervals between cars were ex-
tended, while mandamus would be the
to restore or change the
schedule to conform to the public con-
venience. To illustrate: the Liliha
street people desire to prevent
change in the schedule on their end
Of the line. hence. the use of the writ
Of injunction. The Kaimuki people.
Lwenty-minute schedule to a ten-uln-
ute schedule. Is not mandamus their
Regarding the public convenience as
to the general use of the cars in Ho- |
1olulu. it is significant to observe that !
With a ten-minute schedule on a part
IF the railway system and a twenty |
minute schedule on other parts thereof
reduces the whole system to a twenty
minute service to a person in any part |
IF the city, who, in the first instance, |
axes passage on a line although it is
operated on q ten-minute schedule and /
who is obliged to pass over a line with |
,nIy a twenty-minute schedule to reach |
lis destination. Thus are not only the |
people residing on a line with a |
schedule inconveni- |
snced. but the entire population of
some 10000 people, to say
of strangers and outsiders,
obliged to consider this difference in /
schedules and act accordingly. Pub
ic convenience, in my opinion, clearly
'equres that all lines be operated upon
uniform schedule, and that a pas
,enger may thus be able to reach his
destination in any part of the city
Without delay.
Respondent also urges that the stat
tie does not prescribe any specific
luty on it's part to be performed. II
will be observed, however, that the
tatute specifically and clearly directs
hat the respondent shall at all times
maintain a sufficient number of cars
o be used upon said railway for the
arriage of passengers as public con-
-enience may require
1t has already been pointed out that
he evidence clearly and conclusiveiy
hows that this requirement can onlE
,e complied with by continuation or
he ten-minute schedule. This surely,
f anything further is required, rem
ers the statute specific and certain
eyond question.
1t is a familiar rule that that IS
ertain which is capable of being made
ertain Hence. from either point OF
lew. the statute is specific and GER
ain and enforceable. It is also my