The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-05-26
OPINION OF THE COURT PER JUDD, CO.

OPlNlON OF THE COZ XII PEh y ODDJ -
A petition in due form to annul
the election of Mobiles for the divt-
sion of Oahu was filed and presented,
and all the requisites of the statute
regarding notice, ETC., complied
with. 1t came on for hearing before
Mr.. Justice Bickerton, who filed,
on the both of March, full state
ment Of his findings of law and
fact, diminishing the petition. From
this the petitioners perfected an APP
peal to the Court, in banco. At the
hearing before us, the petitioners,
through their counsel, Messrs. A. s.
Hartwell and G.. w. Ashford, stated
that they accepted all the findings
of fact by the trial justice raised by
the petition, except that set out in
the sixth paragraph, wherein it is
alleged that the Minister of the In
terror refused and neglected to in
sert in the printed ballots the Ha-
waiian equivalent of the name of
the candidate Henry Waterhouse.
We therefore affirm the findings of
fact not excepted to, and will con-
slider the contested matter later on.
The principal ground advanced
by the petitioners upon which the
election is soug hit to be annulled is
that the ballots prepared by the
Minister of the Interior for use on
the occasion were illegal, in that
they did not contain any of the
words 'tKohO ana no ka makahiki
1892" nor any Hawaiian words
specifying the name of the office, or
the name of the division for Mobiles,
or the term of the Office, nor, in the
cases of the special elections, any
words in the Hawaiian language
specifying the unexpired terms of
the office, nor the words "Koho
Balota Kuikawa," but that all of
said Hawaiian words were omitted
therefrom, as appears by specimen
of said ballots appended to and
made part of the petition. More
succinctly, the ballot is averred to
.abe illegal because its descriptive
parts were not printed in Hawaiian.
The question is an important one,
having wider effect than on the
present case. We find nothing in
the Constitution or the statute laws
requiring that acts passed by the
Legislature should be in both Ha-
waiian and English, though the
rules of the Legislature have I'M
doubtedly required that this should
be done.
The only statute that we are
aware of that bears upon this matter
is the early one that where radical
and irreconcilable difference is
found to exist between the English
and Hawaiian versions of any part
of the Civil Code the English ver-
sion shall be held binding. Civil
Code of 1859, section 1443. This
was enlarged by the Act of 1864, so
that now if there is found to exist
ii radical and irreconcilable differ
ence between the English and Ha-
waiian versions of any of the laws
of the kingdom which have been,
or may hereafter be enacted, the
English version shall he held bind
ing. This would certainly imply
that the statute laws of this king
dom have been and will continue to
be passed and promulgated in two
versions, English and Hawaiian
But, though this may be the case
the two versions constitute but one
act. There is no dual legislation.
AS rule one version Is the trans
Iation of the other. The effort is
always made to have them exactly
coincide, and the legal presumption
is that they do. We are aware tina
though the Hawaiin language il
the original language of this people
and country, the English Language
is largely in use. OF necessity tn,
English language must be largel.
employed to record transactions o
the government in its variou
branches, because the very idea
and principles adopted by the gov
eminent come from countries wher
the English language is in use. Nc
that it is exclusively employed c
that the use of the Hawaiian lar
guage in any instance would not b
perfectly regular and legal. Tn
records of our courts show pleading
of all kinds in the Hawaiian lal
guage received with as much al
prevail as those in the Englisl
Which language would be use
would depend upon the compar
tive familiarity of the writer Wi
one or the other.
An aboriginal Minister of the L
terror, looking only at the Hawaiii
version of the election law of 189
might order the descriptive WORE
on the ballots to be printed in Il
Hawaiian language, he being mo
familiar with it. No one could 81
that such ballot would not comp
with the law. Equally legal won
be ballot where the descripti
parts were in the English langua
exclusively. Such a ballot won
strictly comply with the Act az re
by the Minister In the English IL
guage, there being nothing in t
Act directing which langua
should be used or that both sho,
be used.