Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1916-05-04
In Letter to Star-BuIIetin Re-
iterateS Protests Made
a. Hearing r..
Editor. Honolulu star-BuleItin:

4
Sir: Will you publish the following
as my views on the proposed Rapid
Transit franchise, impertectly ex-
pressed by me before the utilities
commission last night:
l am utterly opposed to the grant
ing to the Honolulu Rapid Transit &
Land Company what it claims as an
| rndeterminate, but what | claim is a
perpetual charter. Why bubble
over names? If it is not perpetual,
when is it to end? If il is to end some
time. why not state the time. But il
| Is intended to never end. II the COM
pany thought il would end II would
| not want il, for il could be ended
within a short time after being grant
ed, and then all that it is seeking
would go for naught. Ii is satisfied
| that its splendid organization can at
all times defeat the disorganized PEG
| pie. ~. -. ...a.
We have heard it said that the com
| pany should have this charter now to
| enable II to make extensions that the
| people are suffering. for VIII there
ever come a time when the people will
not suffer for some improvement in
] the service of this company. no mat
te. how efficient that service may be;
and would mot the same argument of
public need for extension be always
made to block legislation tending to
end the charter? Could not the same
| argument be made in turning over the
streets and roads to corporation?
We need good streets and roads more
| than most anything, and there are
| lands that can be opened up only by
the making of new ones. but we would
not think of turning the doing OF this
over to a private corporation:
remember full we'll that when the
company was organized it was pub
| lic-spirited movement, not a money.
making project. The investors wanted
| only fair rate of interest on their
money e per cent?. .". .. ... .
vised Laws): -:
Charges on income. The follow
ing charges shall be lawful upon the
income of said railway: --....-.
Il. The expense of operating, re.
pairs, renewals, extensions, interest.
and every other cost and charge prop
/ erly or necessarily connected with the
maintenance and operation OF said
railway. a
| az Dividends may be paid to the
stockholders not to exceed 8 per cent
on the par value of the stock issued.
80. A sinking fund may be created
for the redemption of any bond which
! may be issued or other record debt
and the capital upon the expiration
| of the franchise; provided, however,
that the amount placed to the credit
| of such sinking fund annually shall
not exceed in amount such sum,
with interest computed at per cent
| per annum, compounuou, as will, prin-
cipal and interest combined, at ma.
| turity, equal the par value Of the
bonds, record and capital debt afore-
said. ... ~:
"A The excess of income shall be
divided equally between the Territory
| of Hawaii and the stockholders of said
corporation.
"5. A quarterly account or trial
balance of the corporation shall be
rendered by the corporation to the
superintendent of public works from
the beginning of actual construction
of the railway"
| Government Has Got Nothing.
don't believe thai any other pro-
vision does or was intended to nullify
this very plain provision. To me this
means something. Has the govern
ment ever received a cent under it?
No. Why not? Because it was dis
covered by the company, sitting as
court and jury in its own cause, that
by not putting In one additional dol
lar stock dividend could be declared:
that all over per cent didn't have to
be paid to the government; that II
could go into permanent improve
nients and extensions. and then stock
could he issued to the value of those
improvements and extensions, not to
the government, but to stockholders,
who would, of course, draw the divi-
dend on that stock. This seems to
me to be most brilliant scheme Of
getting something from the people for
nothing.
Is it possible that the public has
to go into court after each time the
company increases its capital stock
and show that the increase does not
represent bona fide addition? This
is an absurdity. Who is going TO do
it and how is it going to be proved?
; There are many charges for perman-
ent improvements besides money paid
for material and labor. We have had
conspicuous illustration of this in
the recent disclosure Of the county's
alleged 80 per cent overheard charges
which | grant may be somewhat ex-
aggerated, but which shows state of
affairs which IL continued will result
in destruction of our representative
government.
BY this means without putting in
a dollar in addition to the original
100000 capitalization they get stock
of the value of 81 500, 900. Instead OF
getting per cent on $500, 900 they
get per cent on 100000 or what
ever less the net profit happens to
be and there Is no limit to the repe-
tition of this operation. So 1t would
he oocu 40 kka rro<,~.I< fr>...,