Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1908-01-20

The defendant claims that injunC-
tiun will not lie upon the facts in the
case because public convenience
means the convenience Of the public
under all the circumstances, - such
facilities as the traffic will warrant,
as determined by the revenue deriv-
ed therefrom, and also BECAUSE the
court will not usurp the legislative
function and require any particular
service which is shown to be unproiit-
able to the company, and further, be-
cause the case shows. that no permis-
sion was given by the Superintendent
of Public Works to Cnange the
switches so that the proposed sched-
ule could be carried out, the applica-
ton for an injunction being, there
fore, premature.
The Court says: The defendants
claim that its right to regulate the
operations of its railway includes the
right to determine for itself at what
intervals its passenger cars shall be
run is not tenable. The statute re-
quires that it shall at all times main
tain sufficient number of cars to be
used upon said railway for the car
riagc of passengers as public cOnyc-
Iience may require.
Undoubtedly there are many adj
ministrative details in maintaining
and operating a street railway more
or less affecting its efficiency in serv-
ing the public interest which are nee
cssarily and finally determined by the
railway officials and are not within
the power of equity to supervise and
direct: but the defendants claim that
the furnishing of sufficient cars for
public convenience on Liliha street is
a matter of which II is the sole Judge
goes too far, for it would admit
similar claim in respect of any other
street over which its line is estab-
lished and include right to run no
cars on such portions Of its line rs IL
thought fit, and in some cases would
amount TO ropudiating expressed
contraCtual obligations imposed upon
the defendant by acceptance of It's
charter.
Decisions upon the exercise of ju-
dicial power concerning the maintc-
nance or operation of railroads or of
branch roads which refer to corpora
lions authorized but not required by
statute to construct ana maintain
! railroads are not In point.
AS to the defendants claim that II
does not appear that irreparable in
| jury would result, II Is enough that
the proposed act would be violation
of the statutory. obligation of the de-
PENDANT.
We do not sustain the defendants
contention that the suit Is premature
pending the result of its application
to the Superintendent of Public
Works for permission to change It's
switches to conform to the proposed
1920 minute service. A matter so
important to the public is subject to
judicial inquiry and determination
unless, as is not the case mere, shown
in clear language to be entrusted to
executive discretion or to the dIscrc-
ton of the corporation.
The present case is not that of Il
threatened public nuisance, but it af-
lects the public and therefore re-
quires immediate judicial interpos-
ton provided the prescribed duty is
sufficiently specific. The statute does
not specify how many cars shall be
| required to be run in order to satisfy
the public convenience, and therefore
| the objection to n writ of mandamus
that the need of stated number
could not be judicially determined
| might have considerable force IL II
were not that definite and clear
standard of public convenience in
| this regard has been established by
| the defendant corporation in its main
| tenance, since it began operations, or
schedule upon Liliha street.
No one pretends that the public
can require for its convenience Il
more frequent service over the de-
PENDANTS railway system than the
defendant corporation can afford OF
that public demand, as shown by the
use of the cars, is not material fac
tor in determining 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 con-
tinuancc of that service would pre-
Guide the company from paying dlyi-
dends. 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 emit
tied to reduce the service upon any
one street in its system to the incon,
venience of the public simply be-
cause 1t has not made profit from the
receipts from that one street.
As to the defendants contention
that the Liliha street line did not