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

good deal Of time In disposing Of
other points; but, If they were not,
the matter was ended. He quoted
article 62 of the Constitution to show
that the taxpayers name is TO be
entered on the list Of his district.
That is, if the mans name is not on
the list, he must go there and ask
to have it put ON. Therefore, if
John Richardson went to put these
names on, the requirement of the
Constitution was not fulfilled. An
amendment to that article in the
laws of 1870 had further established
that provision. Some of those men
mentioned by the member for Molo-
kai the speaker knew personally as
belonging to Wailuku and Lahaina,
and he knew that some of them,
after being refused at Kaanapali,
went back to Lahaina and voted.
Regarding one of the witnesses for
the contestant, he had very good
reason for doubling any testimony
he might give. If the Hawaiian ver-
sion of the Constitution was correct
those people ought TO have made
application for registration in per-
son. If he understood the law, if a
mans name was not on the list he
had no right to vote. The inspectors
had challenged those men by saying
they had no right to vote. 1t may
have been that the inspectors had
made mistake in putting the names
on the list, and when election day
came, finding they had made mis-
take, would not allow those people
to vote, the only thing they could
do. That was what the law meant,
if, when they found man had not
right to vote they told him so.
Now, the complaint was made
against the hon. Mr.. Kaukau, but
the fault was not his. If any wrong
had been done, it had not been done
by him. If the inspectors had not
complied with the law they ought to
be punished. The law said that
when inspectors had not complied
with it they should be prosecuted,
but nothing had been done, there
had been no complaint against any
of these inspectors. The Constitu-
ton prescribed the way in which a
member could be unseated. None
of those grounds had been alleged
against Mr.. Kaukau, but they were
asked to unseat him, simply because
the inspectors had done something
wrong. He therefore moved that
the report of the majority be
adopted.
Minister Neumann said: a letter
of mine has been quoted, and even
at this late hour l will say something
for it, and may also express the
hope that the hon. member for
Hanalei will also listen to what |
have to say. | have seconded the
motion of the hon. member for Laha-
ina (Aholo) aud l think that, like
him.. | am doing my duty. L must
say the very able argument which
has been made by the hon. member
for Molokai has been made from the
standpoint of lawyer and an
advocate and not Oft statesman, and
the different ways in which the
views of a lawyer on one side and of
statesman on the other side are
these the lawyer gives such lean
ing to the facts to make judgments
lean his way, as to lead people to
think that they do lean his way;
the legislators duty on the other
hand l deem to be to press facts, to
press them only, and to try to show
that they lead to particular and
correct conclusion. will return to
this part of the subject. in regard to
his construction of my letter, after
reference to the remarks on the evil
dence by the hon. member for Molo-
kai. There are certain maXims in
law, certain principles that need no
demonstration, and one is that when
ever matter is presented to a
court the party who advances
that proposition must establish it by
proof, and it is not for the other
party to show that it is not so. /
claim that the proposition placed
before you by the majority of the
committee is perfectly sound and
logical, for this, that if the law says
that man shall vote only in his
district, then it is prima facie evil
dence that the district where he pays
his taxes is his district and where he
is to vote. 1 ask you whether, in
the evidence which was read by the
hon. member, it appeared that in
one single instance it was proved
that one single individual mentioned
there had paid his taxes in Kama
pail, or was put on the list by the
collector! If this was the case
have failed to see it, and / believe
that you have failed to see it. l do
not believe single member here
has heard that single name of them
was placed on the register of voters
which is the first evidence that @
name has been placed thereby the
collector of his district. Then, il
that is the first and highest proof,
why was not that proof brought
forward before the committee by
the parties who tried to upset this
election? All Of these men who
claim TO have been wronged by the