The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-04-15

nor were they entirely separate and
merely held together by the voters fin
ger and thumb. They appeared, when
held by the intending voter and taken by
the chairman OF the inspectors, as one
ballot, and If the chairman had not ex-
amined tie ends of the paper, the fact
that there were two ballots presented
might not have been discovered. The
chairman announced that there were two
ballots, and proceeded to interrogate the
voter Mahoe, and on the inspectors be-
ing satisfied that no fraud was intended
By the voter, they gave him his ballots
back and allowed him to retire and to
come TO the polls again and vote.
1t * quite possible that the voter Ma
hoe did not intend TO fraudulently de-
post two ballots. He stated to the in
spectors. on being asked, that the ballots
had been given 10 him by one kailsa, 8
runner or agent OF the candidate ]. n
Paikuli. and il NAV be that they were
slipped in together when handed TO him.
He was not examined as witness before
me. The inspectors as / have said
thought that the voter did not intend
any fraud. and therefore did not iasten
the ballots together and mark them
ANuNlC N1lAOl VIII
OF the voter offering the same as re-
Quired by the statute, but treated it SIS
mere mistake and allowed the voter to
vote later.
l find as matter OF law that the vote
OF Mahoe should have been rejected as
double vote. The law is explicit: that
if it appear that more than one ballot
Is embodied j. shall be
marked " rejected l think the in
spectors are not authorized to examine
the voter and satisfy themselves whether
fraud is intended. The law allows but
one vote TO each voter for Representa-
tive, and the offering by voter of what
appears by an inspection OF the ends of
the paper 10 be more than one ballot,
makes 1t Imperative upon the chairman
TO announce the fact, and he must then
proceed to open the folds sufficiently TO
settle the question beyond dispute. Ii
two ballots are found embodied, the voter
is not allowed TO select one OF them and
cast II, but the law preScroes that his
vote shall be rejected. The voter loses
his vote without reference 10 whether he
intended fraud or not. Ii fraud was in
fact intended by the presenting of two
ballots. separately folded as required by
the statute. and one then slipped into
the last fold OF the other, SO as TO appear
as but one ballot, on the fact being dis
covered by the chairman of the inspec-
tors, the voter would undoubtedly saw
that no fraud was intended. But if on a
haSty or imperfect inspection of the ends
Of the ballot presented, the fact of two
ballots being embodied should escape the
nE rha ahafrfr1a onI h.a Do
posted in the box, the voter would then
have cast one more vote than the law al
lows him TO. and a fraud would be in
fact perpe,rated. 1t is to be noticed that
the statute does not say that a vote is TO
be rejected when more than one ballot is
embodied in such 4 way as TO indicate
that they were fraudulently intended to
be deposited as the one vote allowed by
the law to one voter. The bare fact that
two are embodied, authorizes the rejec-
ton. 1t is conclusive ground for rejec-
ton. The law is otherwise as regards
the counting OF votes. Here " if two or
more ballots are folded together in such
manner as to indicate that they were de-
posted together and fraudulently,' such
ballot must be rejected.
This more liberal provision is evident
ly in order that no ballot shall be re-
jeeted because it has become in some
way slipped into another without any
fraudulent intent on the voters part,
after ii has been deposited in the box.
| know of no provision of the statute
by which, when q voter has once pre-
scented his vote, he may be allowed to
Withdraw and come again to the polls
and vote. The statute says that +" in al
cases, F" whether rejected or not, the vote
." must be returned 10 the chairman"
l find, therefore, that the vote of Ma
hoe was Improperly received whereas it
should have been rejected. II the above
named kaui and Mahoe, whose votes
have found should have been rejected,
voted for Mr.. Paikuli, there were counted
for him two more votes than he was en-
titled to have. Dedueting these two
votes from the total of 80 that he re-
eeived, it would make his votes I2S, the
same number cast for Mr.. Kaulukou, j.
e., tie. II Kauli's and Mahoe's votes
had been rejected by the inspectors there
would have been an equality OF votes be-
tween the two candidates and in that
case the statute ebliges the chairman to
give casting vote.
1QSISlOFS uuu aIu aUluu2S Il2l
there were two votes cast at the election
in question contrary to the provisions of
law and that they affected the result and
consequently l adiudge the election
aforesaid to be invalid and declare the
seat Of Mr. Paikuh as Representative for
the District OF Koolau to be vacant
During the progress of this inyestiga-
ton my attention was called TO matter
not alleged in the petition to wit: that
all OF Mr. Paikui's ballots were folded
parallel with the lines OF printed matter
on them, and all of Mr. Kaulukou's
were folded at right angles to the lines
A partial opening of one leaf of the
folded ballot would identify it TO any one
who knew the method OF folding. There
is nothing in the statute prescribing
whether the ballot should be folded in
one method or the other But the sta
tute requires the rejection of all ballots
'sfolded contrary to the directions Of the |
statute and such folding be for the evil |
dent purpose OF Identification" am of |
the opinion that the ballots of one OPP
posing candidate were folded differently |
from the other for the purpose OF identi- |
fication, but cannot say that either set |
L n L Il L L