The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-09-03

/
whether upon an agreed 5 atement of
facts the voter has retained his resi-
dence in the precinct OF his registra-
ton.
OPINION OF THE COURT, BY M'CULLY, J..
The defendants were members of
the Board of Inspectors of Election
for precinct 2, district 2, island of
Oahu, at the special election of July
9th, 1890, for the election solely OF
one noble in place of one who had
resigned. They are charged with
the offense of violating provisions OF
Chapter rs of the Session Laws of
1883, which is the general election
law. 1t is admitted that the general
proceedings in holding the election
were according to law. The charge
made is that the defendants unlaw-
fully refused to take the ballot of
one Norman Edmund Gedge. The
admitted facts are that Mr.. Gedge
was duly registered as voter in this
precinct, and was entitled to vote
there, unless the fact of his removal
of residence from this precinct and
taking up residence in an adjoining
precinct "about ten days" previous
to the election properly barred him
from casting his vote there. The
defendants, inspectors, declined to
permit Mr.. Gedge to vote under the
provisions Of Section 80 of the Act
which reads: "Whenever any district
shall be divided into two or more
precincts, separate lists of voters
residing in each precinct shall be
prepared from the register, and no
elector shall be permitted to vote in
any precinct other than that wherein
he resides"
The contention of the prosecution
is that the construction given Janu-
airy rs, 1890, by the Justices of this
Court, in reply to certain questions
propounded to them by the Minister
of the Interior supported the right
of Mr.. Gedge to vote. We say in
that opinion, "That election districts
are defined in Section 13; they are
"a in number, and one Representa-
tive is allowed for each district, and
can be voted for by only the voters
of the particular district. But
the Mobiles, "a in number, are
not apportioned to be voted for
singly by the voters of the respec
tive election districts, but nine
Mobiles are to be voted for by each
voter (who is qualifed) on the
Island of Oahu, and six by each
voter on the Island of Hawaii, and
so on throughout the group. For
purpose, therefore, of voting for
Mobiles, the Island of Oahu is the
District, as is also the Island Of
Hawaii, etc. If ali the voters quail
fed to vote for Mobiles can vote for
the number of Mobiles prescribed for
the island on which the voter lives,
it can make no difference in which
Election District within the island
or group of islands he may reside,
and any change from one to another
| of these districts into which the
island is divided cannot affect his
right to vote for Mobiles, provided
he has resided on the particular
island where he offers to vote for
three months Immediately preceding
the election"
In our view this opinion does not
support the claim of the prosecu-
ton. 1t is to the effect that a resi-
dence of three months in any part
or parts of the island district is the
residence required for man other
wise qualified to vote for Mobiles
under which he may register. 1t
does not touch the question of pro-
per registry. The section of the
law then on which the Inspectors
based their actions, requires that he
shall be resident in the district or
voting precinct in which he regis
tiers, and resident of the precinct
in which he votes. This would
seem to be a needed law for the
regulation of voting. The law pro-
vides for a voters getting his name
transferred from one registry to
another upon his changing his resi-
dence. If he neglects to attend to
this, it cannot be said that the law
has disfranchised him, or if he
changes his residence so shortly be-
fore the date of an election that the
transfer, which must be done at an
advertised public meeting of the
Inspectors, cannot be made, he dis
franchises himself by his own act,
as he would if he chose he make a
journey abroad previous to an cleo
ton.
We consider that in refusing the
vote of Mr.. Gedge, the defendants
followed the law and we acquit them
of the charge.
A separate case is brought against
the same defendants in respect to re-
fusing the vote of Charles Lucas at
the same election. This case depends
on the construction of facts, whether
MIR. Lucas had a residence in the
precinct at the date of the election.
We subjoin the report of his testi-
mony given in the Police Court and
agreed to be taken here
MIR. Lucas testified that he had
been registered in this precinct and
had voted there at the preceding
election, and had not registered in
any other precinct. In Jan, 1890,
I resided on School street, opposite
Rice's barn; house belongs to me;
/ built it. In latter part of JAN,
1890, DIR. Brodie wanted to rent my