The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-01-21

1
/ been established by the defendant cor
poration IN its maintenance. since 1t
began operations or for about six
years, OF ten-minure schedule upon
Liliha street Public convenience re-
Quires, as shown by the evidence. and
as would be clear in the nature Of
the thing, that the proposed diminu-
ton Of service upon that street shall
not be made. While 1t might be diff
/ Flcult 10 say in advance what number
Of cars would be sufficient, owing TO
the vagueness OF the terms sufficient
and public convenience there is
nothing uncertain concerning the ar-
tual Inconvenience OF a reduction OF
the Liliha street service or in the pub
lie convenience requiring its continu-
ance in order to conform with the
time schedule on the connecting lines
III the city of Honolulu.
No one pretends that the public can
require for its convenience a more fire.
quent service over the defendants
railway system than the defendant
corporation can afford or that public
demand, as shown by the use of the
cars, is not material factor in de-
termining what service will suffice for
public convenience. but there is no
evidence that the teu-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 10 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
is so, because as the primal duty Of a
carrier is 10 furnish adequate facili-
ties for the public. that duty may well
De compelled. although by doing so as
an incident some pecuniary loss from
rendering such service may result.
Atlantic Coast Line V. N. Car. Corp
Com n. 20e L. s. IS. The defendant
therefore Is not deprived Of its prop
arty without due compensation
Whether. as suggested by the Circuit
Judge, a demand for more frequent
car service over that portion OF the
lire 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 question
not before US. but. We see no occasion
for the defendants suggestion that
the decision Of the court below is
bid TO the people of Waialae to ask
for a ten-minute service throughout
the entire day al the expense Of the
revenue of the company. and If II is
to be sustained the principle is es-
1ablished that every cent Of the rev
enue derived from transportation shall
20 back to transportation without re-
turning one cent on the capital con-
trihuted by the stockholders, much
less any income on their investment"
As to the defendants contention that
the I.Iliha street line did not pay, the
figures ,.ffered in support OF this view
wers not convincing and hardly reout
the presumption, if any there be, aris-
ing iron, tie continued use for about
six years Of the line. AS operated at
present orir one car every twenty
minutes on the Liliha street line goes
thrt ugh the heart OF the city, alternate
cars connecting with King street stop
ling at the next switch beyond, so
that practically all passengers transfer
10 and from the King street cars
I'nUs a great majority Of passengers
returning from the heart OF the city
paw their first fare on the King street
tine and get a transfer, none Of which
receipts are credited, in the statement
given. Il, the Lilfha street line; where
a. il the Liliha street car ran few
blocks 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, II 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
piail.tiff
Isficult as it might be to determine
upon evidence the precise number OF
cars which should be maintained by
the defendant or how public c0nve-
nience may require them to be used
upon the railway in order TO discharge
the statutory obligation imposed by
Sec. s4f r L. the court should not
be deferred from undertaking this task
By the argument that If the time
schedule were reduced by inpercept-
fbIe degrees It would be impossible 20
draw the line as TO where public con-
venfence began and ended. Undoubt-
ed1y there is considerable margin with
in which the discretion Of the directors
Of the corporation could not be dis
t3rbed. but the court must take such
case as il finds IT and decide whether
the existing facts or whether, as III
this case. the proposed action Of the
com pany fuIfls the requirement Of the
statute. The method Of disposing OF
q case ike this Is well illustrated in
the opinion Of the court in Atlantic
Coast Line r p Co Y Horton, supra
zrr41fT-y~ the GxurAsE wish L