The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1910-01-22

system was hopelessIy wrecked. Had
the matter been voted on by them
while the cable lines were running no
doubt extensive demands in the way
of seating capacity or reduced fares
/ would have been made. During subse-
quent construction, the company's ex-
pressed desire to see transportation
speedily restored in the streets was
proven to be contrary to its real policy.
Instead of constructing a new system
block by block and leaving the balance
of the streets open to other forms OF
traffic, the company secured unskilled
laborers, who tore the streets up for
miles in advance of reconstruction,
| leaving them in this condition for
many months until more skilled labor
wwas found to install the new sys-
TEN. This needless tearing up of the
streets resulted in great damage to
many shopkeepers and residents, and
further demonstrated the utter ruth
lessness of his corporation when the
public welfare was at stake,
THE PARKSIDE BRIBERY.
The next salient deal uncovered by
the Oliver grand jury was known as
the Parkside bribery. A large tract OF
land owned by the Parkside Company
was being subdivided and it was felt
that a franchise for an electric road
was needed to connect the tract with
the lines of the United Railroads. Had
an ordinance been submitted for the
franchise to the people, under the
would doubtless have passed at the
election held in the fall of 1906. This,
however, would have required the Sc
lection of an unimproved street, as
the only improved thoroughfare lead
ing to the property was a mecadam-
lied boulevard, and under the city
laws railroad could not be run upon
any of its boulevards. The attorneys
for the Parkside Company sent a men,
her of the firm, also an investor to the
amount of $4,000 in it's securities, to
secure Ruef's assistance in passing an
ordinance through the board granting
this franchise. He reported back that
il was necessary to bride. Subse-
Quently this bribery was arranged, not
however, by the attorney in question.
The agreement was that the Super
visors should declare an unimproved
street a mere surveyed streak of sand
to be the boulevard in place of the ma
cadamized street. Thus the improved
highway would become and ordinary
city thoroughfare, upon which rails
could be laid The franchise was
to be granted over some sixteen blocks
of its length. The money was duly
paid, but the plot was discovered be-
fore the ordinance was passed.
NOT A ROLD-UP.
NO one has had the temerity to urge
that this transaction was an eXtortion
or hold-up. Not only did the profit
abe escape from paving over a mile
OF street, the absence of any attempt
to submit the ordinance at an cleo
ton, and the failure to seek relief from
the District Attorneys office, preclude
the validity of any such claim, but in
this case the District Attorney got
wind of the negotiations and specih
cally asked the company whether 1t
" as being blachmailed, and was assur-
81 to the contrary.
Incidentally, the attorney who re-
ported back the necessity of bribery
was a former Judge of the Superior
Court and the then president OF the
san Francisco Bar Association. AL
though it was made public that he
had neither disclosed the crime to the
District Attorney nor withdrawn from
ne investment, nor given up his attor-
neyship for the Parkside Company, ne
still held to the presidency of the bar
association, An Indictment, subse-
quently quashed, was found against
one Of his partners for alleged partici-
pancy in the offer to bride, and the
bar association was later forced to
consider the partners disbarment eth
er for bribery or the purchase of Ruers
influence over the board, either OF
which entailed a violation OF the at
torney's oath.
ATTORNEYS INVOLVED.
Several other prominent attorneys
were involved in similar transactions
and there was plain need for vigor-
GUS investigation to determine the pro-
priety of their disbarment as well A
motion was made at the meeting Of the
Association that such investigation be
undertaken and the matter was re-