Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-12-08

declaring that IL the proposed fran
chise bill is allowed to lapse in Wash
ington, II will increase its capital STOCK
under the present franchise and invite
action in the courts If the territory
Is dissatisfied. the Honolulu Rapid
Transit & Lano Company yesterday
afternoon answered Governor Pink
hams letter of last week.
The Rapid Transit reply follows the
lines indicated by the Star-Bulletin
yesterday. The company emphasizes
pending in Washington does not pass
the company will not go ahead with
improvements and extensions.
Rapid Transit Defines Its Attitude.
The company's reply was delivered
to the governor late yesterday after
noon. 1t is as follows:
Honolulu, T. H.. December Z, 1914
Honorable L. E. Pinkham.
Governor, Territory of Hawaii,
Executive building, Honolulu, T
H.
"Sir: In acknowledgment of your
favor of the 30th ult.. addressed joint
ly to Mr.. J. N. S. Williams, chairman
of Public Utilities Commission, and tc
me as president of the Honolulu Rap
i'd Transit &. Land Company. wherein
you have indicated your refusal to urge
the passage Of the bill now before
Congress extending the franchise oi
the Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land
Company, l have to advise you that
the subject-matter OF your letter, to
gether with the analysis of figures
therein contained, have received the
careful consideration of the board oil
directors, which has instructed me to
submit to you the following reply:
Amounts to Denuneiation.
Primarily 1t Is regretted by the
company that you cannot urge the
passage of this bill. In fact, your
letter, copy Of which you have for
warded to Honorable Franklin K
Lane, secretary of the interior
amounts to a denunciation of the mea
sure and will. no doubt, result in NO
action being taken by the present Con.
gress and the bill iapsing. in March,
1915. - - =, -= Z, go. -. : - i
ut is not the intention of the, com,
pany to enter into, q controversy with
you over your analysis of the &C.
counts of the company. se.sSe =
in 1913, when this measure was
last before our local legislature, the
books and accounts we're subjected to
a most exhaustive analysis, not only
by the then governor and his repre-
sentatives, but aiso by a committee
OF three selected from the Merchants
Association, and the various figures
were given the widest publicity, both
at public hearings and also through
the medium of the public press.
Most Modern Authorities. .
The draft of the present bill was
prepared by former Governor Frear,
after reference to the most modern
authorities and after aequainting him
self with the terms of the franchises
lately granted in some Of the large
eastern cities. 1t was thereafter sub
mitted for approval to the then secre-
tary, Mr.. Mott-Smith, and to the com
mittee of three members from the
Merchants Association above referred
to. together with their attorney.
"A number OF conferences we're held
at which we're present, besides those
mention above, one of the directors
of this company. -
I'm other words, the final framing
of the measure was In the hands OF
a committee Of seven members, three
of whom were attorneys ana six of
whom were acting solely in the public
interest and but one acting In. behalf
Of the stockholders. -
Not Compromises Measure.
As finally accepted, this bill does
not represent a compromise between
the views of the company and the
views of the Representatives of the
people. but 1t contains practically ey-
erything asked for by the governor or
by the committee referred to above,
substantially all of the conditions be-
ing conceded by the company in an
endeayor to meet the public wishes
more than half way.
This is the instrument which you
now condemn.
Our directors feel assured that In
view of past experiences no extension
Of the present franchise can be secur-
cd by the company upon equitable
terms until the value of the stockhold-
srs' investment in the property under
The present franchise mas been legally
Upon every occasion that an extern
non has been applied for before our
ocal legislature this question of value
has confused the terms to be cons;d-
cred in the exten3ion.
The Necessary Construction. d
Any analysis OF the books OF the
company is subject to the construction
placed upon the teims OF the franchise
.nder which the company is now OPP
srating. and the issues to be decided
,efore different analysis of figures can
gree are:
First The right of the company
inder its present franchise, which is
IN irrepealable contract between the
erritory and the company, to capital.
re extensions constructed out of earn
ngs available but not distributed as
dividends.
81