The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1908-01-24

the Illfna street service or IN the pup
lie convenience requiring its continu-
ance in order to conform with the
time schedule on the connecting lines
in the city of Honolulu.
No one pretends that the public can
require for, its convenience more fire.
quent service over the defendant 8
railway system than the defendant
corporation can AFFORD or that public
demand, as shown by the use Of the
cars. is not a material factor in de-
termining what service will suffice for
public convenience, but there is no
evidence that the ten-minute service
heretofore given on Liliha street has
not paid at least operating expenses
or that the continuance of that SER
vice would preclude the company from
paying dividends. Liliha street is not
a branch railroad. 1t Is one of the
streets of Honolulu upon which the
defendant established originally its
railway system. The defendant is not
entitled to reduce the service upon any
one street in its system to the incon-
venience of the public simply because
it has not made profit from the re-
ceipts from that one street. A rail-
road company may be required by the
state railroad commission to make
reasonable connections with other
roads so as to promote the convenience
of the travelling public by running an
additional train for that purpose, al
though the running of said train, taken
by itself. would be Improbable. This
= tt,a vxrsr,1 6rrtyv of {,
carrier is to furnish adequate facili-
ties for the public. that duty may well
be compelled, although by doing so as
an incident some pecuniary loss from
rendering such service may result.
Atlantic Coast Line ". N. Car. Corp.
Comm, 206 u. S. rs. The defendant
therefore is not deprived of its prop
erty without due compensation
Whether, as suggested by the Circuit
Judge, a demand for more frequent
car service over that portion of the
line between Kaimuki. on the Waia-
lac road, and the junction can be en-
forced by mandamus, because those
who desire more cars there are now
insufficiently supplied is a question
not before US, but we see no occasion
for the defendants suggestion that
the decision OF the court below lis
bid to the people Of Waialae to ask
for ten-ninute service throughout
the entire day at the expense of the
revenue of the company, and II 1t Isl
to be sustained the principle is es-
tablished that every cent of the rev.
enue derived from transportation shall
with
turning one cent on the capital con-
tributed by the stockholders, much
less any income on their investment
As to the defendants contention that
the Liliha street line did not pay, the
figures uffered in support of this view
Wers not convincing and hardly rebut
the presumption, If any there be, aris-
ing from the continued use for about
SIX years of the line. AS operated at
present orly one car every twenty |
minutes on the Liliha street line goes
thrc ugh the heart of the city, alternate |
cars connecting with King street stop
ping at the next switch beyond, so
that practically all passengers transfer !
TO ana from the King street cars. |
thus a great majority of passengers |
from the heart of the city |
pay their first fare on the King street |
line and get a transfer, none of which |
receipts are credited, in the statement |
given, to the Liliha street line; where
a. il the Liliha street car ran a few |
bucks further through the business
section of the city almost all of this |
would appear as receipts from this |
line The defendants method of ap-
portioning operating expenses. if at
tempting anything more than a rough |
approximation, is also open to criti-
cism so that altogether the corpora
ton, placed on the defensive by its |
own conduct of it's business for many |
years, fails to rebut the case of the
plan.tiff.
Difficult as it might be to determine
upon evidence the precise number of
cars which should be maintained by
the defendant or how public conve-
nience may require them to be used |
upon the railway in order to discharge
the statutory obligation imposed by |
Sec. SAL r. L., the court should not |
De deferred from undertaking this task
by the argument that if the time /
MCIC ny lAupClNCPl-
BILE degrees it would be impossible to
Draw the line as to where public con-
began and ended. Undoubt
edly there is considerable margin with
n which the discretion of the directors
If the corporation could not be dis
but the court must take such
case as it finds 1t and decide whether
he existing facts or whether, as in
his case, the proposed action of the
fulfils the requirement of the
statute. The method of disposing Of
/ case like this is we'll illustrated in
he opinion of the court in Atlantic
Coast Line r. r. Co. v. Horton, supra.
In such an inquiry the express wish
IS of the patrons of the road are far
rom conclusive as it may be assumed
beforehand that they would be unani-
nous in wanting all they think they
an get. A case supported only by
uch evidence would have to be par
icularly strong to warrant the inter-
,osition of a court.
In the case at bar, however, there
re surrounding circumstances which
upport the contention of the witness
s on behalf of the plaintiff. The fact
hat a ten minute service has been
maintained upon Liliha street ever
ipoa he dafapdanf,a railway cfartad |