The Hawaiian gazette., 1886-06-22

attorney, decided, in their Judicial capa-
city, that these men had right to vote.
The Inspectors having once placed the
names on the list, could not remove them
merely by authority Of the Attorney
Generals ssay So"
True the decision of the Inspectors was
not entirely binding but, it could only be
set aside in legal manner as specified in
Section 500 of the Civil Code The writ
ten opinion of the Attorney-G General in
this matter is that challenging should have
been DONE And the Attorney General does
not say that an applicant should appear
in person, but name might be placed on
list on production of tax receipt. The
speaker read the advertisement published
by the Attorney General last February,
relative to the granting of franchise and
the action necessary to place NAMES ON vot-
ing lists. He continued, by asking the
members what right the Assembly had to
say that intending voters should appear
personally, before the Inspectors, when
the law on the subject did not so state
The question however was not one OF law
but common sense. Were they going to
admit that $40 civil case in the Police
Court, where the appearance of the attor-
ney for plaintiff or defendant was deemed
sufficient and therefore valid, yet, in this
greater case, involving the right of fran
chise, deny the right to appear by attor-
ney? He considered that the law was in
favor of the minority report the opinion
of the Attorney General, also and, hehoped,
the common sense Of every member of the
Assembly.
Continuing, he drew the attention of the
Assembly to the necessity of challenge be
fore a name-could be legally removed, or
else by swearing the party, as prescribed
by Section 800 Of the Civil Code. Did the
Inspectors challenge? Not at all, they
simply said to those twenty three persons,
1--WE have a letter from the Attorney Gen
eral that you cannot vote; you may go
home" The Inspectors were not actuated
by malice, or intent to do wrong, but
they were scared out of their wits by the
Attorney Generals letter, The Attorney
General warned the Inspectors to go by
the law, or they would be liable to prose
cution and Imprisonment. Those Inspect
ors were neither lawyers nor educated men
and after wading through several pages
of the Attorney Generals advice they were
only animated with the belief that they
must keep those men out.
Representative Thurston, continuing
said that, if the majority of the Assem-
bly, decide against this point of law, re-
garding the duty of inspectors to chal-
lenge voters, it would be the means of es-
tablishing most dangerous precedent for
the reason that that it would establish the
right of inspectors to, without authority
of law, remove names from the lists. Ii
the law point relative to the duties of In
spectors was correct then the Assembly
would have to sustain the minority re-
port. On the point of fact the speaker
said that the report of the minority was
supported by the evidence submitted at
the hearing, the majority" report states
that, (quoting): "Some seven or eight
persons who were debarred from voting
claimed to be residents of the district,
there was no evidence to sustain the
claim" Representative Thurston then
produced the evidence of three witnesses
who had affirmed before the committee
that those people were residents Of the
district, and, the speaker said, he consider
ed it gross partisanism on the part of the
majority to bring in report stating
that this claim of domicile was
not supported by evidence. ''The speaker
then referred to the evidence given by the
Board of Inspectors, the chief of which
had stated that all the men desiring to
vote had tax receipts, they were refused
to vote in body, did not vote or challenge
them, acted solely on the letter of the
Attorney General" Now who was pro
residents, a man whose name was not on
the voting lists and who, on being asked
why his name was not on, said, 80, am
bullock thief, have been, convicted of
stealing cattle and cant vote" The only
other person to give testimony was Adam
Kaukau, the man whose seat is now being
contested, and this in the face of evidence
from kdnladinds.
He hoped that the Assembly would not
act on this in partisan spirit, but that
they would act on the matter impartially
and judicillay. He did not speak on this.
matter because he was opposed to Mr..
Kaukau or in favor of Mr.. Richardson,
but because he desired to see justice
done.
Representative Thurston ended his
speech at $50 pm. having spoken one
hour and twenty minutes.
Representative Aholo thought the main
issue was whether or no tie names of the
petitioners had been placed on the lists
legally. If it was decided that they were
put on properly that settled the question.
He quoted from article 81 of the Consti-
tuition and argued that voters must ap-
pear personally before the Inspectors. In
allowing the names to be placed on the
list the Inspectors might have made a
mistake and refused to allow the men to
vote He moved that the majority report
be adopted and also moved the previous
question The latter motion he withdrew
however to give the Attorney General an
opportunity to speak,
The Attorney General said that the
argument of Rep. Thurston was an able
one from the stand point of an advocate
but not from that of a statesman. He con-
sidered that portion of the remarks con
tanned abuse and threats. He did moi
believe that all the wisdom, all the purity,
all the honesty, dwelt entirely within the
small lot of supporters of the honorable
member from Molokai. He INDUCED in a
simile to show the position of Rep. Thurs
ton by relating the advice given by an
old lawyer to his son viz: when the law
was against him, to stick to the facts,
when the facts against him stick to the
lGE, when both law and facts against him
then abuse the other side. Oaughter.l
Representative Thurston desired to ask
if the old lawyer mentioned, was the
Attorney Generals father Oaughter.)
The Attorney General said, if it had
been so, the Attorney General would have
been better lawyer. Continuing he REFER,
ed to Laws of 1868 and 1874 and stated
that the manner in which names could
be placed on and taken off voting lists
was fully prescribed.
Representative Thurston, do you
mean to say that after the names have
been put on the lists, according to statute,
that they can be removed without the par
ties being challenged"
The Attorney General: "These names
were not put on in accord with any
statute but by FRAUDULENT representation
and therefore could be removed"
Representative Thurston, sThen the In
spectors could re move those names from
the lists themselves
The Attorney General-"Yes.n
Several more questions and answers
passed between the Attorney General
and inquiring members, and at 4:30, Rep
resentative Kaulukou took part in the
verbal contest, ending his remarks, as
usual, by moving the previous question.
Representative Dole took the floor, but
while about to speak was called to order
by one of the % great maiority.n ON the