Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1916-05-10
RI FRANCHISE BILL TO GOVERNOR;
COMMISSION FINISHES ITS DRAFT

to the city should be paid \ IA per
cent seni-annually."
Now as matter OF fact a little
arithmetical thought shows that l IA
per cent paid semiannually would be
only l IA per cant for the whole year.
not 2 ~ per cent. since each ! IA
would naturally have to be on the past
six months earnings, not on the
whole year.
This little-or big-discrepancy was
noticed, it was said today, by City
Treasurer Conkling and a very brief
discussion resulted in the straight
ening out of the provision so that the
city gets the 2l-2 per cent all right,
Chairman Forbes of the commission
said today that the suggestion was a
pure inadvertence On the part Of one
of the commissioners.
Clearing a Confused Point. =
Attorney d. L. Wilmington aided to
day in clearing up point which APP
parently was confused In this morn.
ings paper by the following letter to
the Star-Bulletin: ~".-. -. =. =
Editor Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Sir: The statement in the Pacific
Commercial Advertiser this morning
that at the public utilities hearing 1T
was declared by the representative of
the railway that II the company was
limited to 8 per cent there was no use
in going any farther with the work of
the draft, as his company would not
stand for the limit is wholly untrue.
II might be Of interest to add that
the Advertiser reporter (who draws a
salary as city and county treasurer)
turned to the writer and asked him
to explain the difference between Gu
mulative dividends and compound in.
terest! Later In the day he claimed
that a replacement fund which the
Public Utilities Commission proposed
to insert in the bill in order to keep
I'D for all time the service, was the
same thing as a capital stock sinking
fund which had been eliminated!
While l am writing you, take the
opportunity to say that the trouble
with Mr.. Magoon's contention in Mon
days Star-Bulletin is that 1t lacks
facts to sustain it. The question he
proposes to submit to the Supreme
Court Is Eow before it, but without
facts to sustain his contention, for
the simple reason that they do not ex-
list. For instance, Mr.. Peck, at a hear
ing before the Public Utilities Com
mission, three times forced Mr.. Ma.
COON to admit: % that the franchise.
section IL, authorizes the expenditure
of income for extensions; CD that
every dollar of income which had been
spent for extensions had been divert
ed from dividends and from sinking
funds for stockholders. and that the
never could, under the
terms of the franchise, participate in
one dollar Of it no more than in wages
TO the motormeR; CD that section ~
provides that stock can be issued for
the cost and IS per cent in excess
thereof of "all subsequent extensions"
| have always admired the extra
ordinary holiness Of Mr.. Magoon IN
the face Of the most cogent facts, and
still am lost in admiration and won.
der. ~-s>..... 49,. .3.-.s I'LL
It is a matter Of qualification to the
individual citizen to see a committee
of the Board of Supervisors, headed
by Judge Hatch, take up large pro-
of this kind with intelligence
and care, know what they want, and
get everything they 60 after and
more than they expected, and per
hapsl more than the Rapid Transit
would eventually con
cede. t..s .-..-...
DAVID L. WILMINGTON. 1
Honolulu, T. H., May 10, 1916.