Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-03-20


track is concerned they might have
only two streaks of rust" but they
would have the land, the power plant.
the cars and other things. To leave
the public and the company in that
! position, however. would be unfair TO
both. There would be loss of values
IN which no one would profit. Ae-
cordingly. franchises are now often
made !ndeterminate but with q pro-
vision that If they Aare determined
the public shall pay back to the
stockholders what they put in; in
other words, buy the property. II,
however, the franchise is made of a
definite duration. the stockholders
should be enabled to get back their
investment. during the period of the
franchises. but in that case the prop
erty should go TO the public at the end
and the capital sotck should be re-
tired gradually as the stockholders
are paid back. for they could hardly
expect to be paid back their capital
and yet continue TO get an incline
on it, <:..:.- ...."
What Are Fair Terms?" -.
Mr.. Castle also states as common
datory that the company pays consid-
cradle in taxes talthough the court
records show that it has repeatedly
Tried to reduce the assessments), but
taxes are supposed to be paid by all
businesses. They are not paid as mat
ter of favor. The question is not, as
Mr.. Castle seems to think, whether
the public is better off financially
with the railway than it would be
without 1t, because it pays taxes. The
public is going to have the railway
anyway. The question is, What are
fair terms to the public and to the
company? p. !.
Mr.. Castle refers also to several
cases, more particularly the transfer
and paving cases. In the transfer
case he intimates that the court was
wrong because it did not adopt his
construction that continuous ride
meant continuous ride in one direc-
ton. The English is so plain that
the public can understand il. In that
case representatives of the company
told me that if the decision
should be that way the COM
pany would have to tear UP
It's tracks and not maintain the Wilder
avenue line down to King street at
IaWaa junction, because otherwise
people might ride round and round In
circle on one fare as long as they
pleased. told them that that would
be bad policy on their part and also
that they We're men of brains and
could easily devise a form OF transfer
which would prevent that result. Mr..
Ieek some time afterwards showed
me form of transfer which he had
devised for the purpose and in which
he justly took great pride. for it was
very ingenious Mr.. Castle also con-
tends that | injured the public by that
decision as it reduced the earnings i'm
which the public might share. ut III
he takes the false view that it is reye-
tue rather than service that the pub
lie wants. Was it Injurious to the
public to hold that they were entitled
to. transfers at Pawaa junction? t2l
IL is at least question whether that
Cecision has not resulted in greater
revenue because IL has stimulated
travel. CD Under the present fran
chise if the contentious of the COM
pany are correct, the public will never
share in the earnings anyway.
The Paving Case. ........#
In the paving case the company at
tlrst took the position that it had
Iaved King street with macadam and
that having done so, it could not be
required to pave it in any other way;
N other words. that the duty was one
that could be required only once, and
that there was not continuing duty
to comply with the changes IN the ma
ter1al with which the streets were
made. That position was later aban-
doned. The company then made GER
tain other contentious and stated that
it merely wished decision on the
law and requested that the matter be
presented to the supreme court on an
agreed statement, so that the COM
pany might not appear to be taking an
antagonistic position. l agreed to
that, but delay of some months was
caused by the refusal Of the company
TO agree to what seemed a reasonable
statement of facts. When the govern
ment had lost patience and was about
=
to bring adverse proceedings, the COM
pany agreed to the facts. The deci-
sion was in favor of the government.
The company then, to the surprise Of
the government, undertook to appeal to
the federal supreme court. That would
have caused long delay But it was
found that the submitted questions
had not been framed In such way
that an appealable judgment could be
entered. The company then refused
to abide by the decision and desired
the government to bring mandamus
proceedings and go through the mat
ter all over again so that judgment
might be rendered upon which the
company could appeal to the federal
supreme court. The government re-
fused to stand any more child's play
and gave notice that it would insti-
tute proceedings to terminate the
franchise if the company did not COM
ply with the plain provisions of the
law. The company thereupon COM
piled, the government. however, gran
ting it the privilege of putting blocks
instead of bitulithic pavement be-
tween the rails and for one foot on