Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-03-21
D. |. Wilmington
ANSWERS FREAR
i. ON PAVING
Points Out Facts of Controver-
sy Mentioned by Our
:. F.. Modern Portia'
Editor Honolulu Star-Bulletin,

Editor Honolulu Star Bulletin,
Sir:-T have taken no part in the
franchise discussion between the Gov
ernor and the Rapid Transit, but |
cannot overlook what is either a lack
Of memory or a defective power of the
expression of fair and accurate jury
ment on the part of our modern Por-
Tia when he deals with the paving
case, misrepreSents the company's POI
sition, aud, whether Intentionally or
not, conveys false impression ia
nearly every line. The. company did
not first" take the position that, hay-
ing paved King street with macadam.
ii could not be required to pave ii in
any other way. The first position ii
took was that it was prepared To pave
either with ohia blocks or with bitu-
Hthic, and the superintendent OF pub.
lie works had first seemed to favor
CHA blocks. The company had en-
tered into a preliminary agreement,
tefore any controversy arose, with Mr..
Gilman, looking to pave with btu
ithic. The controversy arose, when
II was discovered that the specefica-
tions required the cempany's property
to be buried into mass of concrete,
preventing the company from removal
or repair. Thereupon. the company
voted that the president, manager and
its counsel should wait on the COVER
pOr, superintendent of public works,
they being the officials to whom I'M
Ger the charter control in all these
matters was committed, AT the con
ference the company stated. that it did
not want to stand in the way of im-
-provements, but referred to the diff
culties in the WAY, TO the fact that
they were obligated to put in a pat
Gated article at price determined by
The patentee and that it was aues-
tion whether, the company was oblig-
ed to put in a new pavement every
time the Supervisors or some other
Eoard ordereds when a pavement had
once laid did not require any
repairs. The suggestion of sub
mitting the matter to the SUI
preme court was made by the COVER
nor and not by the company. The
delay in the submission was not
caused by the refusal of the company
to agree, to reasonable statement of
facts. As matter of fact, the Gov
ernor brought the Superintendent OF
Public Works into line and into the
agreement, Of facts which the COM
pany had commended for II may be
true in one sense that the decision
was in favor OF, the government, but
this statement is misleading. Both
the government, and the railroad were
surprised when the decision held that
the discretion of the superintendent
Of Public Works had been taken away
by the County Government Act; a.
contention not made by the govern
ment, and which was a main reason
for the company's appeal to the SUI
preme Court of the United States,
which had previously sustained a sim
liar appeal in the Lfliha street, case
and reversed the Judgment of the Ha-
waiian court.
What is said by the Governor about
an appealaEle judgment and the COM
pany's refusing to abide by the deci-
sion shows either forgetfulness or un-
familiarity, because the proceedings
we're dismissed at the instance Of the
government. How could the RAJ Id
Transit. abide by a decision which the
government had had set aside? /
leave 1T to the public to determine
who was engaged in child's play.
AS to the threat made by the Ter
ritory Ito forfeit the franchise, now
learn for the first time that this had
any effect on the compromise which
was finally made, which was that we
might pave with ohia as we had con-
tended for from the first. = 80
The correspondence with the Gov
ernor was on August 80 to 81, 1919.
On July 26, we had notified the Super
yisors of our willingness to pave, in
substantial accordance with their ac-
ton of July %, with either ohia or
stone blocks, and the change subse-
quent. to that was to allow us to use
ohia blocks. instead of lava which we
had ordered on August Is. -.
f. DAVID L. WILMINGTON.