The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1892-04-13
NOBLE ELECTION VALID.
so DECLARED BY THE
FULL BENCH.
The Ballot Would Have Been Equally Legal
u Descriptive Words We're
in Hawaiian.

The election of Mobiles for the ISL
and of Oahu has this day been de-
clared valid by unanimous decision
of the full bench of the Supreme
Court. Chief Justice Judd renders
the opinion, signed by himself and
Associate Justices Bickerton and
Dole.
The grounds of protest of Capt.
John Ross, candidate, and others
we're given in this paper at the initia-
ton of the case, also when it pub
lshed the full text of Judge Bicker-
tons decision against the protest
which was appealed from to the full
Court. Briefly, the grounds were
that the ballot used In the election
was illegal because its descriptive
parts were not printed in Hawaiian.
The Court finds "nothing in the
Constitution or the statute laws re-
curing that Acts passed by the
Legislature should be in both Ha.
waiian and English, though the rules
of the Legislature have undoubtedly
required that this should be done.
1t then cites the early law relating to
the Civil Code, and the later one to
all statutes, declaring that, where
there is an irreconcilable difference
between the English and Hawaiian
versions, the English shall be held
binding. But the two versions con-
stitute but one Act. There is no
dual legislation. The effort is always
made to have the two versions ex-
actly coincide, and the legal pre-
sumption is that they do.
After referring to the facts that
the English language is necessarily
largely in use, although the Hawai-
ian is the original language of this
people and country, and that the re-
cords of our courts show pleadings
of all kinds in the Hawaiian language
received with as much approval as
those in the English, the Court says
an aboriginal Hawaiian Minister of
the Interior, looking only at the Ha-
waiian version of the law, might
order the descriptive words on the
ballots to be printed in the Hawaiian
language. No one could say that
such ballot would not comply with
the law.
ga forcible argument" says the
opinion, "could be made to the Leg
islature advocating an Act requiring
the printing of ballots in both Ian
guages, in order that the needed in
formation be furnished to the voters
who understand Hawaiian or English.
But we do not find that the law on
the statute book directs in what Ian
guage the ballot shall be printed
The Court remarks that its opinion
before the election only went to the
extent of saying that the insertion OF
the Hawaiian version of candidate!
name in addition to his foreign name
was not forbidden by the law.
The Court cannot find it proved
that there was written request t
have Mr.. Warehouses; name in Ha
waiian put on the ballot. eff tn,
request was orally made there is M
evidence that noncompliance will
the request was by design or inten
tional fraud or discourtesy. Having
found that the omission to print de
scriptive words on the ballots in Ha
waiian did not vitiate them, thu
omission of the Hawaiian version o
a candidates name is equally harm
less.
"We therefore affirm the decision
appealed from and dismiss the petit
tion."
A. S. Hartwell and G. w. Ashford
for petitioners; Attorney Genera
Whiting and +. M. Hatch contra.