The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1886-06-18
Che 9aiIy y lllstin.
FRIDAY. JUNE 10. 1886.
the LEGISLATURE.
DEBATE ON THE KAANAPALI ELECTION
CONCLUDED.

Rep. Castle seconded the motion,
saying he had voted Aye in order to
move for reconsideration. The pre-
vious question had cut off discus
sion, and of course the only chance
to discuss the question was on a
motion to reconsider it. He moved
the house adjourn till half-past one,
on condition that he should have the
floor at that hour. This being put
and lost, he proceeded to discuss the
merits of the question. Prior to the
election he had some conversation
with John Richardson with regard
to the Kaanapali election, and adj
vised him to use great care in bring
ing in voters from other districts,
as the law was very strict on that
subject. He discussed the mean
ing Of "his district" saying the
law of 1864 was the only place
where three months residence was
mentioned. The Attorney General
during his argument stated that this
matter should not be considered in
the light Of partizanship, not from
lawyers but from a statesman's
point of view. The right to vote,
that of sharing in making laws for
the kingdom, was sacred right,
which every member of this house
should guard most jealousy. He
conceived the question was not to
be limited merely as one whether
Richardson or Kaukau was entitled
to the seat, but it was a question
that concerned the rights of the
people. The only thing the house
could do was to order new cleo
ton. The number Of electors in
Kaanapali was small, but they were
entitled to their rights. 1t would
be granted by every member that it
was sound law that to contest an
election the question was simply
whether there had been fraud, or
fraud sufficient to turn the scale.
The majority by which the member
holds his seat was three votes. Was
it shown before the Judiciary Com
mittee that there were four votes
or more rejected which should not
have been? 1t was their bounden
duty if four votes or more were i'm
properly rejected, to void that cleo
ton. He disliked to see anything like
party feeling, but there was dis
position Of the majority to carry
their point at all hazards, and he
hoped the house would rise superior
to that. 1t appeared by the evil
dence that at least seven or eight
voters were not allowed to vote,
whose names were, on the list in
proper order. There was no place
in the laws requiring that voter
should appear personally before the
inspectors to have his name entered.
The Hawaiian version did not con-
vey that as the only sense, and the
English did not bear that sense. He
asked man the other day if he had
entered his suit and he said yes !;
but he found out that his attorney
had entered it. Did he lie? No.
The list could be corrected in any
way so long as the judicial officers
were satisfied that the corrections
should be made.
Rep. Kaulukou asked if the law
did not provide that man must APP
pear personally or by his attorney.
Rep. Castle replied that in some
places 1T did, but where the law said
a person must appear before the
court, the law was fulfilled through
his appearance by attorney. He
had often appeared against the
member for Hilo in court, but never
heard him make the point that he
was out of court because his client
was not there. The speaker made
this point because it seemed to be
the difficulty pressing most on the
member for Lahaina (Aholo), and
he noticed that good many mem
bers seemed to take it as conclusive
when it was mentioned. 1t was not
borne out by any law. The hon.
member said he knew himself that
some persons rejected in Kama
pail went to Lahaina and voted.
That was curious, but it was
the only place in the islands
where it could be done. Kaanapali
and Lahaina are one taxation dis
trict, and voter could vote in
whichever place he chose. How
ever, there was no evidence before
the committee of this. 1t was sim
ply the statement of the hon. MEM
Der. Those persons went to Kama
pail to vote for Kaukau or Richard
son, and were denied the privilege.
There was only one way in which
the names could have been removed,
and that should have been followed.
1t had been said that if the inspec-
tors had broken the law they should
be punished, but that would not
restore the defrauded voters of Kaa-
napali their rights. If his view was
correct, and the evidence was that
more than four voters who should
have been on the list were rejected,
that election should be voided. But
the house had gone somewhat into
the question of domicile. There was
nothing to show that these men were