The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1886-06-16

prove that the board, having once
placed the names on the list, could
not remove them merely by author
lty of the Attorney-GeneraPs "say-
so," but only after their being
regularly challenged. There was a
lawful way for taking off names that
should not be enrolled, and any
other way was illegal. The adver-
tisement of theAttorney-General
prior to the elections was quoted to
show the power the inspectors had
of adding names of persons exempt
from taxes to the list, the speaker
contending that they had equal
authority in the case of other proper
applications for additions to the list,
without the voters having to APP
pear in person. Persons had causes
tried in the courts without having to
appear except by attorney, and he
thought they had an equal right to
appear by attorney in case in
volving the privileges of the fran
chise. He contended that the At
rney-General, in his letter OF adj
vice to the inspectors, did not con-
template that they were to remove
the names of non.residents by the
stroke of their pens, quoting the
Attorney.Generals words, on the
contrary, to the effect that they
must challenge persons whose right
to vote was questioned. Instead of
following that advice, however, the
inspectors simply said to those 23
| persons, "We have letter from the
Attorney General that you cannot
vote; you may go home" He did
not think that the inspectors were
actuated by malice, or intended to
do wrong, but that they were scared
out of their wits by the Attorney
General. The Attorney-GeneraPs
advice was further quoted to show
that he had emphatically warned the
inspectors to go by the law, or they
would be liable to prosecution and
Imprisonment. Those inspectors
were neither lawyers nor educated
men and after wading through sew
eral pages of the AttorneyGeneral's
advice they were only animated
with the belief that they must keep
those men out. But if they had
followed the Attorney-General's ad-
vice this point of law would not have
arisen. If a majority of the house
would override this law, he said it
was dangerous precedent, giving
inspectors of elections the right,
without authority of law, to remove
any names whatever from the list.
If au inspector can, of his own vol-
ton, take name off for one
reason, he can take it off for an
other reason. The only safe way was
for them not 10 allow them to take
$ n&luc off for any reason, except in
Tbs legal wAy. II they went into
REASONS for removing names they
were lost entirely, because in a close
contest the inspectors could throw a
decision any way they pleased.
They ought to lay down the princi-
/ pie that only for the reason pre-
scrihed by law could name be
taken off. If they granted that
principle then the Assembly must
sustain the minority report. Mr..
Thurston then proceeded to discuss
| points of fact, which he claimed
must also sustain the minority re-
port. That report stated that if the
rejected voters had been sworn they
could have proved that they were
residents of the district and entitled
to vote there. The majority report
asserted that satisfactory evidence
had been produced to prove that
those persons were strangers. He
then read portion of the evidence
that had been submitted to the COM
mittee, which he held to be conclu-
sive that the 23 applicants were
residents of the district, that their
names had been properly enrolled
in the first instance, and that they
were not questioned separately at
the polls as to their qualifications
but were rejected in body without
challenge. The two witnesses re-
lied upon by the majority of the
committee, and whose evidence
satisfied them that those people
were not kamaaipas but malihinis,
were the gentleman whose seat was
contested (Mr. Kaukau) and a man
who admitted that he was not a
voter because he was convicted
bullock thief. The speaker did not
believe that the member for Hanalei
(Mr. Palohau) and the member for
Hamakua (DIr. Kaunamano) under
stood the report. 1t was written by
the member for Hilo (Mr. Kaulu-
kou) and they signed it. He gave
the member for Hanalei credit fol
being fair man, and did not be.
lieve he would sign that if he knew
what was in it, and he gave the
member for Hamakua credit for the
same thing. 1t was plain evidence
and not disputed by anybody ex'
, cept by bullock thief. AS he sale
in the first place, he did not think
, the Assembly would act on this in {
> partisan spirit, but that they would
act on the matter impartially ant
judicially. He did not come in there
, because he was opposed to Mr.
Kaukau or in favor Of Mr.. Richard
,