The Hawaiian gazette., 1912-07-26

letters, one from A. Il. Castle to The
Advertiser, the other from J. Il. Castle
to the Star Bulletin, which this paper
has been requested to republish. The
letters are:
Rapid Transit Owners
Honolulu Hawaii, July 25, 1919.
Editor Advertiser;-In your issue Of
Thursday, July 20, you quote Supervisor
Low as follows: "Tho ohia company
of Pahoa is the only one from which
they can get ohia blocks. What are
you going to do about ohiaH The ohia
company is Interested in the rapid
transit company so they are trying to
force ohia on our Streets
In regard to the imputed "ohia
monopoly James b. Castle has suf-
ficiontly explained his position and that
of his company in his letter to the
Star.Bulletin of July 25. There is no
ohia monopoly, nor has tho rapid
transit company even tried to force
ohia blocks on the community. Our
position is shown in our proposition to
the supervisors of "some of the forms
OF block pavement for King and
Queen streets, and by the approval of
lava blocks for Queen street. We can
not consent to bitulithic for tho reason
that it is patented pavement and
not suited to our use.
In regard to the interest of the rapid
transit company, the facts are as fol
lows, Only two stockholders in the
rapid transit company-one who owns
five shares and the other whose holding
is merely nominal-each own one share
in the Hawaiian Development Company
for purpose of qualification; and that
no shareholder in the Hawaiian Devel.
opment Company, except the gentleman
who owns five shares in the rapid transit
company, is financially Interested in the
rapid transit company. There are 1905
shares of stock in the rapid transit
company. Had Supervisor Low cared
, to find out these facts the information
would have been freely given
Respectfully yours,
ALFRED l.. CASTLE,
Secretary, Honolulu Rapid Transit and
Land Company.
, No ohia Monopoly.
, July 20, 1912.
Editor Star Bulletin :-Accordin to
, your issue of yesterdays afternoon, as
well rs this mornings Advertiser, Act
e ing-Mayor Low has made the following
. First-That the Pahoa Lumber Mill
' has a monopoly ON ohia blocks.
Second-That tho H0hia company is
/ interested in the rapid transit com
v pany.
|. Third-That the rapid transit com.
= pany is interested in the ohia company.
. All of the foregoing statements are
d absolutely and unqualifedly false.
statement of the exact facts is
due to the citizenship of Honolulu, as
: well as in Justice to myself.
d They are as follows:
tx First - The Hawaiian Development
=. Company (the owners of the Pahoa
a. Lumber Mid, have no monopoly of the
=. supply of ohia and its steadfast policy
81 and principle is uncOmpromisingly OPP
posed to any combination or "under-
81 Standings or 'gentlemen 3 agree
gu ments' whereby Ostensible competitors
10 become practical monopolists. | will
state that upon more than one occasion
" the Hawaiian Development Company
OF has been undersold in straight compe-
e. tition for ohia products, and instead of
Oh having any monopoly of ohia blocks in
any potential rapid transit street work
IA it is directly in competition to secure
ID any such business with the lava paving
block or anything else that may arise
VS., suitable to the work of the rapid
>. transit company.
ID Second-The Hawaiian Development
Company neither collectively nor by
els any individual stakeholder Except w
elk r. Castle, who holds one share of the
in Hawaiian Development Company, Ltd.
es. stock in order to qualify as a directory
mt has dollars interest in the rapic
or transit company, nor has had any sucf
nj oil l,nff
ever dreamed of manufacturing ohia
-, blocks or anything else in which the
", rapid transit might have an interest
a,o that / know of.
Il, Third-Neither the rapid transit com
NO pany collectively nor by any Individual
~, stakeholder, except as above stated, are
Interested one dollar in the Hawaiian
,s+ Development Company, nor in the lum
~ ~ Der business thereof
~ In all of this controversy we beg tt
no state that we stand for but one thing
~. the fair and square deal to every citi
NJ zen of straightforward open compe
ttion. We have received from the su
pervisors so far one such opportunity
that of lower King street, the contract
for which was won by the btulithic
IN company. The next opportunity that
might have been given, 30 far as We
know was the Queen street job when
the contract, without any opportunity
= for any other competition, was awarded
is to the bitulthie company with com
on mendable steam-roler speed and
100 method
~, 1t is pertinent to remark apropos OF
'h' the manifest sensitiveness (accordinp
to the newspaper reports OF the con
~ ferences of the board), of the members
W. of the board, TO implication or innuendo
aa Of graft, that there il one way and
~ one way only, no fur as l know, IL
Wv forever quash any such implication OF
" thought on the part Of any citizen and
that is to steadfastly maintain a
straightforward open competition with
" out any tricks or jokera la the speciaea
r llons or conditions, patent ar no pa
lni tent. theTeby fulfilling their elementary