The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-07-22
THE HILO INSPECTORS.
Trial Of the Officers at HilO for
Violating the Election Laws.

The case of the Queen against
Charles Williams. 3. Maaikauna.
II. P. X. Malulani and w. B. Ka-
haleohu, Inspectors of Election in
the District Of North Hilo, charged
with violating Sections 40, Al, 43
and A Of Chapter S6 of the Session
Laws Of 1890, came up for trial
before the Police Judge of Hilo
Judge Hapai) on Tuesday and
Wednesday, July y and -. D.
II. Hitchcock assisted the prosecu-
ton, and the defendants appeared
for themselves.
Malulani, who holds n license to
practise law, moved to dismiss the
case himself on four different
grounds, all Of them more or less
unique, one of them being that as
the case did not occur on the high
seas, the Police Court had no iuris-
diction. The legal luminary named
made an eloquent address in sup
port of his motion, which was
nevertheless ruthlessly overruled
by the Court. All Of the defend
ants pleaded not guilty.
1t will be remembered that no
election was held in the First Pre-
cinct of the District Of Hilo on the
day set for the special election,
April 18th The statute Of 1890
provides (Section 1917 that all
public officers wilfully failing to
perform their duties as laid down
in the Act, or violating any of its
provisions, shall, upon conviction,
be liable to fine of $1,000 and inn
prisonment not to exceed two years,
or both, within the discretion of
the Court. 1t also attaches as a con-
sequence an inability to hold pub
lie office or q seat in the Legisla-
ture for a term of three years. In
the case at bar, it was shown in
evidence that the commission Of
the chairman of the Board, Charles
Williams, bearing date April I'd,
was not received by them on the
Eth, or six days before the day set
for the election; that notices of
meetings Of Inspectors to correct
the voting list were posted, and
that no meetings were held that
on the 18th of the month the
inspectors with the exception of
Mr.. Macy were in consultation
with Mr.. Richard, and that they
decided to hold no election; that
on election day they assembled
but refused to receive any votes,
Mr.. Macy alone protesting again
this action, and that the corrected
voting list or register of the general
election of February, 1892, was in
the hands of the Board. No testi-
mony was put in by the defend
ants to rebut any of these allega-
tons. Copies of the correspond
ence with the Minister of the
Interior, of the Inspectors Com
missions, ETC., were filed.
The statute provides that the
Board shall post list of qualified
voters in the district, not less than
fifteen days before the election
that it shall hold not less than two
meetings to correct this list, not
less than five days before the cleo
ton, and that of these meetings
not less than five days notice shall
be given. There being no regularly
constituted Board either fifteen or
ten days before April 13, the first
and the last of these provisions
could not be complied with accord
ing to the letter of the statute, al
though there was still time to hold
the meetings prescribed by law,
within the prescribed period. The
Inspectors, however, took the
ground that no election could be
held, it being impossible to comply
strictly with the law, and they ac-
cordingly held no meetings and re-
fused to receive any votes.
Several motions were made to
dismiss the case against the de-
PENDANTS, which reduced them
selves principally to the double
contention that the law had not
been violated, as an election held
under the circumstances would not
have been legal; and, second, that
in any case, the evidence failed tf
show wILFUL failure to comply
with the statute. The Court TOOK
this view, and discharged all TIT
prisoners.