Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1916-01-07
RAPID TRANSIT
right TO ISSUE
.. STOCK IsUPHHD
Continued from page one)

e
notice that they would file the fina
decree some time next week. II viii
I be from this decree that the territor,
will appeal the case, providing an ap
peal is taken. .
f Beginning his decision proper Judg,
( Stuart says; .-. :....... -.
I THE defendant claims that by al
. express provision OF its franchise, i
+ Is entitled to issue stock for the full
amount OF the legitimate cost of III
/ plant and % per cent in addition
/ thereto, and | find that the charter 81
/ reads To illustrate. If this plant haG
4 actually cost $500. 1000. by the char
( ter defendant may properly ISSUE
stock TO that amount and 70 per cen
IN addition, or S., 900, although th'
I property may not be worth more a
: the present time than $2,000.000 Thi;
is undoubtedly the reading OF the de
| PENDANTS franchise or charter. Plain
tiff claims that stock should issue only
to the value OF the plant as il now
stands, after deducting from its cos
value all depreciation that may have
arisen from any cause" -:
Assessed Value Quoted, ~.
Indge Stuart goes on 10 say that
the testimony of the tax assessor and
the books introduced i'm evidence
showed that the assessed value Of the
company's plant, which. In this terri
tory, is placed at the actual cash
yame of the property" was, at the
time the case was commenced, 81
1870. 49, H.. ..=."
''If we add % per cent to this, !" the
decision reads, ut gives us an anth0r-
ized issue OF stock of S2674 637."
Commenting on the testimony OF
William Barringer, a witness for the
territory who spent three months as,
pertaining the value of the Rapid
Transit plant, the decision says he
found that the plant cost the company
81, $50, $50. 20. =. e.. II
'Rut Barringer'' the decision con,
tinues, did not include everything
which was later included in the stip-
ulation. showing a cash outlay and
cost to the defendant of $2.17l ,976.I1.
Add % per cent to this and we have
an authorized stock issue of S2,7l4,-
Sob" ~. j.. -. r..
The decision points out that ]. NJ.
Young, another engineer, fixed the
cost and original value Of the Rapid
Transit plant at 1887, 40174. "But to
this" it continues, lis TO be added the
tramways purchase and the Pearl Har-
Dor traction extension, which again
brings up the first, cost to S2,171-
976.11, and by adding the 25a per cent
we again have an authorized stock
basis of s2,714,97013. Young finds a
depreciation OF $3.50. 57i11. This
taken from $2,7l4,97e13, leaves an ali.
thorized capital stock of $t,l3l. 1892.
Agreement Is included.
At this iuncture there is inserted in
the decision the written agreement
filed by the opposing attorneys, con-
tanning disputed and undisputed items
regarding the cost and actual value OF
the Rapid Transit plant. The disput
ed items amounted to S56S,91943 and
the undisputed items to s1,603, d56.6S
Judge Stuart adds, by way Of rom
ment, that the investment by the RAD
id Transit in both the old Hawaiian
Tramways and the Pearl Harh"r Trae
ton Company was fully authorized
by the defendants charter.
The Hawaiian Tramways Company
Judge Stuart finds, had the prior right
to and was occupying the principal
streets of the city. These compel
ing companies were continually az
war" he continues. sin the legislature,
the courts and elsewhere. Everyone
saw the necessity OF the settlement Of
these disputes not only for the benefit
of the companies, but for the pubic
benefit, and from the nature OF the
Rapid Transit charter, the purchase
of the Hawaiian Tramways Company's
rights and property by 1t seemed to be
the only proper way of solving the
difficulty"
The correspondence which Governor
Pinkham had with certain interested
parties prior to the purchase of the
tramway by the Rapid Transit, which
correspondence has been published in
the Star-Bulletin, is commented upon
at some length in the decision
Pinkham's Advice Good.
MIR l., F. Pinkham, a public
spirited citizen" Judge Stuart says,
who was at that time also holding
one of the territorial offices, under
date of April H.. 1899, wrote the au.
JuOTllleS Oh lHe fdplu. transit .tOin-
pany advising them to pay $400,000
for the property and rights of the
Tramways Company. and enclosed a
letter from a learned friend of his
engaged in street railway business, ad.
vising that the Rapid Transit Com
pany should pay $4,000 for the prop.
erty. I think that Mr.. Pinkham gave
good advice and ! believe that when
the Rapid Transit Company finally
bought the Tran,ways Company for
$255, 549. 90, that il made the best bust.
ness investment il has made during its
life. | have no hesitancy in holding
that the stock, bonds and cash given
in purchase of that property should
be considered as part Of the legiti
mate cost of its enterprise
Grant and Limitation.
1t was argued during the trial.
Judge Stuart continues, that the char,
ter providing for the % per cent In.
crease is not grant but a limitation
Il think it is botn," the court adds
that the plant itself should pass TO the
city at the end of the franchise ri&ht
than as regards any other PROVISION.