The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1886-06-18

try TO control the board 20 40 to de-
prive electors of their votes. As the
evidence before the house goes those
eight men have been robbed Of their
right to vote, and the district of
Kaanapali is not represented in this
house to-day. Everyone present
knows that no one can bean hon. mem.
mber sitting in this house If he has not
received majority Of votes in the
district. 1t is clearly the duty of
this house TO order new election,
and give him a chance to get q
majority of votes according to law.
/ have not heard anything brought
forward to meet the arguments that
those names could only be taken off
the list under the law quoted. But
those names we're removed under the
order of His Excellency the Attor-
ney-General which is under dispute.
! am slightly incorrect there, for
the names were not erased but left
on the list and the men themselves
refused the right to vote. And the
presence of those names on the list
is proof to-day that they had the
right to vote.
Rep. Kaulukou raised the point of
order that the hon. member could
not speak because he voted in the
minority.
The President ruled the point not
well taken.
Rep. Dole: This Star Chamber
order of the Attorney-G General reads
that ''it is your duty to strike off
the names because they are not en-
tered in ACCORDANCE with the provi-
sions of section T." Those names
were not struck off but the men to
whom they belonged were not allowed
the right TO vote. This man, the
Attorney-General, sits in his office
in Honolulu and dictates to these
men. How could he know? "Strike
them off! If this kind Of law is
to have force in this kingdom the
next thing you will find the Attorney
General writing to the courts, dicta-
ting judgments in matters Of escheat.
I believe it is right for me to speak
of this whole action, whereby these
men of Kaanapali we're deprived of
their rights, as a conspiracy, and if
we uphold it we characterize our
selves by its character. We the
minority place ourselves on record
as protesting against this as an in
dignity, an injustice and an outrage.
/ am glad to place myself among
the minority in favor of the rights
of the subject. And 1 believe that
the minority, no matter how they
vote, have a lurking suspicion that
this action is fraught with danger to
the rights Of citizens. And it be-
comes US all to vote on this question
of such great Importance as if we
represent our constituents and not
the rights of officials. The poor
mans vote is his strongest weapon,
and we must not deprive him of it
or else he becomes q slave.
Rep. Brown said: presented the
report of the minority of the COM
mittee in this case, and l would say
that the very evidences received in
this case was rejected in the North
Kona case-received in one case
and rejected in the other. That is
the reason that 1 prepared and
brought the minority report here,
because having accepted that evil
dence in the case of North Kona we
could not but accept 1t in the case
of Kaanapali. The evidence refer
red 10 there was as to the residence
and occupation of these seven or
eight voters complained about, and
it was the same kind of evidence we
received as to seven or eight mali
hinis who voted in Kona, and it looks
very much to me as if where the
evidence does not suit it changes
just to suit them. In regard to the
law, by the act of 1864 three months
residence was required in o district
in order to entitle a man to vote. In
1868 that law was repealed. What
is "his DISTRICT" For the purpose
Of the Kaanapali case, "his district"
was determined by that board in
placing his name on the list. These
persons names were placed there
by these inspectors, and that plac-
ing them there denominated lust
what their district was. And those
names not being erased, and they
not being challenged according to
law, submit that this house cannot
60 behind it, for the very simple
reason that the law which states that
the board shall place names on the
list states the only means by which
the right to vote shall be refused to
any registered voter. Their names
were there, but they were simply in
a body denied the right to vote.
They have residence there, and for
the purpose Of this case they are
fixed there, and the committee or
this house cannot 60 behind the list.
The evidence being sufficient to the
minority Of the committee that eight
of these votes were enough to turn
the election of representative, 1
think all that has not much to do
with this case, The mere fact Of 23
mems names being on that register,
III