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


Sir:-I have taken no part in the
franchise discussion between the Gov,
ernor and the Rapid Transit, but
cannot overlook what is either lack
of memory or a defective power of the
expression of a fair and accurate judg
ment On the part of our modern Per.
tia when he deals with the paving
case, mfsrepresents the company's po
sition, and, whether intentionally OF
not, conveys false impression il
nearly every line. The company die
rot first" take the position that, hay.
ing paved King street with macadam
it could not be required to pave ii in
any other way. The first position II
took was that 1t was prepared to pave
either with ohia blocks or with btu.
Flithic, and the superintendent of puS.
lie works had first seemed to favor
CHA blocks. The company had en-.
Tered into a preliminary agreement
before any controversy arose, with Mr.
Gilman, looking to pave with bit,r
iitAic. The controversy arose when
it. was discovered that the specified
lions required the company'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.
nor and superintendent of public works
they being the officials to whom un-
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 i'm
provements. but referred to the diff.
culties in the way, to the fact that
they were obligated to put in pat.
ented article at price determined by
the patentee and that it was a ques,
ton whether the company. was oblig-
ed to put In new pavement every
time the supervisors or some other
hoard ordered when a pavement had
once laid did not require any
repairs. The suggestion of sub
mttting 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 centended for. 1t may be
true in one sense that the decision
was in favor of the government, but
this statement is misleading. Both
the governmSnt 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 sim
liar appeal In. the Liliha street case
and reversed the judgment of the Ha-
waiian court.
What is said by the Governor about
an appealatle judgment and the com
pany's refusing to abide by the deci-
sion shows either forgetfulness or un-
familiarity, because the proceedings
were dismissed at the instance of the
government How could the Rapid
Transit abide by a decision which the
government had had set aside? |
leave it to the public to determine
who was engaged, In chfld's play.
AS to the threat made by the Ter.
ritory to 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.
The correspondence with the Gov
ernor was on August % to 81, 1919.
On July rs we had notified the Super
visors Of our willingness to pave, in
substantial accordance with their &C
.tion of July %, with either ohia or
stone blocks, and the change subse-
qaeht to that was to allow us to use
ohia blocks instead of. lava, which we
had ordered on August 10.
DAVID L. WELLINGTON.