The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1896-03-13

been made to various bsllots We find
the law to be that the main object OF
the present system of NO'irg j %
secure secrecy of tie aiIu.. Vucioii-
provisions of law arr enacted so that
no one but the voter shall know for
whom he votes ubless he shall there
after disclose il. The provisions in
resptc To the plscs II affixing The
mark, the character of the mark, aud
that 40 other mark or symbol shall
be made upon the ballot, sre 'ie-ienod
TO secure suca uniformity in a.,i.~dr-
ance that any particular ballot cast
shall not be Distinguished aud ri I'm
tilted. We regard all these provi- cons
as mandatory buS whether IN any
particular case they will be beld to be
fatal to the validity of the vote must
depend upon the particular character
of the variation from the statute re
quirement. An honest attempt at
making the cross prescribed by the
statute though imperfectly executed,
which is apparently due to want of
skill or awkwardness in the Use OF the
pencil, imperfect eyesight, or nervous
trembling of the hand, should not be
rejected The law should be con-
srrued if possible so rs not TO disirau-
chise the voter. A large number Ut
the ballots cast are imperfectly mark
ed III some cases the voter was APP
parently not certain that his strokes
OF the pencil We're sufficiently plain
aud repeated them. Some ballots
were U,arked with trembling hands
and The crosses are irregular, but we
find none of them made with any
design to have them identified there
after. They were all counted for the
candidates whose names are opposite
them. We hold that none of them
should be rejected.
A few ballots have the crosses very
near, and in some instances touching
or intersecting the lines or the exteu-
sion OF the lines enclosing the spaces
provided for the voters marks for the
respective candidates. But as these
are substantially within the spaces
provided for the mark, aud the voters
choice readily appears, we do not re.
ject any of them.
On the lower part of one ballot, Elk.
hiblt 5, cast for Mr.. Holstein, there is
short red line. Judging from the
appearance of the iue, aud from the
nature of the fluid which maue the
line, and which is apparently the red
cUlored adhesive matter used for stick
ing the ballots together III blocks, it
is obvious that the existence of the
line on the ballot is the result Of &C
cideDt in the printing office 1t would
not be likely to attract the attention
of a casual observer. Such being its
character, We do not reject it.
nj ~ .,hia,.-
lions. We can see no difference in
principle between them; they must
stand or fall together.
In one precinct all of the six "spe-
cimen" ballots required by law Sec
ton 81 of tue Rules, etc. to be posted,
three outside the polling room and
three in the voting compartments,
were handed to voters aud duly
marked by them, cast and counter ny
the inspectors. These were all market
and counted for H. L. Holstein There
were also seventeen ballots which on
their face showed that they were not
properly folded as required by Section
SO, which reads as follows:
Before delivering ballot to a
voter the inspectors shall fold il twice
first across the middle 80 AZ to form a
rectangle, and again 10 the same
manner and in the same direction,
and in such manner as to conceal the
contents thereof"
These ballots bear creases showing
where they were folded and they were
only folded once and not twice in the
same direction. or these, ten were
marked, cast and couuIej for Alexan-
der Young aDd seven for II. l.. Hoi-i
stein. Oue hundred and twenty seven
(127J ballots in all were counted for
Alexander Young. D-duciing the
five (5) ballots which we have above
rejected from this number, will leave
one hundred and twenty two 122)
votes tor Mr.. Young
Ore hurdred and twenty seven bal
lots were counted for H. l.. Holsteip
Deducting tue one for him which we
have above rejected will leave him
QUE hundred and tweuty-six 126)
vot"". Now, ii the improperly foihed
u Hos counted Tor Young, ten in
hh'nu' r, were rejected it viii leave 112
vo e. tor him. II The seven "a i'm
properly foldei ballots cast for Hol-
stein fere deducted from his 126, it
will leave him l19, ami il the six
specimen" ballots cast for Holstein
are deducted he will have lib votes, a
majority of one over Young. Reject
ing all the improperly folded ballots
and specimen" ballots from the
number cast severally for both can
didates will not change the result.
Holstein will still have a majority
of one. Counting the specimen bal
lots for Holstein he would have
majority of seven For this reason
We do not find it necessary to the
decision of this case to make any
ruling whether these last classes of
ballots should or should not be
counted.
The following cases are referred to:
6 Am. & Eng. Enc. OF Law, 349;
Pheian v. Walsh, 81 Conn. 260;
Parker v. Orr, Al N. E. Rep. Qll.)
1902;
Pennington v. Hare, So n. w. Rep.
MIMI 116;
Waller v. Brake, ga Ib Is. d. $50;
Whittam V. Zahorik, SO 10. Ua.) 81
Ellis v. Scott, 81 ID. mich. 64S;
Buckner V. Lynip, Al Pac Rep
New 1872;
Kirk V. Rhesds, As Cal. 399;
Rutledge ". Crawford, 81 To. 526;