The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-11-13
ELECTION CONTESTS.

number Of protests have been made,
involving the validity of elections in
various precincts. From Hilo comes
the objection that the polls we're kept
open two hours after o'clock; from
Kona that one Of the precincts allowed
four instead of three voting booths:
from Lahaina that official ballots were
allowed to pass out among the crowd.
and that the booths were not kept pri-
vate. but that outsiders were allowed
access thereto. so that they could see
how the ballots were being marked:
from Olaa comes the objection that the
petition for one of the candidates to
stand was not signed by the legal num-
Der of voters. Other minor irregularities
are alleged to have taken place else
where.
Under these circumstances, 1t be-
comes Of interest to know where these
protests and objections will be settled.
Under the constitution of the Repub-
lie OF Hawaii. all election contests were
settled by the Supreme Court. The law
worked we'll and was satisfactory to all
parties Unexpectedly. and for some
unknown reason. the Congress of the
United States Inserted a provision that
each house OF the Legislature should
be the judge OF the qualifications of it's
own members.
Although a part of our election law
was repealed by the Territorial Act.
other portions thereof remained in
force. Among the sections remaining
In force are those providing for juris-
diction by the Supreme Court over
election questions.
The question arises. then, as to
whether or not the Supreme Court still
has Jurisdiction to consider such mat
ters. Notwithstanding the fact that the
Legislature has the power to disregard
the finding of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court itself will have to
pass upon the question of whether or
not 1t has Jurisdiction. IL case is
brought before II.
IL may be suggested that there will
be no object in having a Judgment
or the Supreme Court upon a question.
when the Legislature is at liberty to
disregard the conclusion of the Court.
This reasoning is not altogether
sound. however. For example. in the
United states the Court of Claims
passes upon claims presented by indi-
viduals against the United States Gov
eminent. The decision of this Court
does not give the claimant the money
which has TO be appropriated by Con-
gress. In most cases Congress abides
by the Judgment Of the Court az
matter OF course, and appropriates the
money. In many cases, however. the
Judgment or the Court has been prac-
ucaily ignored, and claims allowed nv
the court have been pigeon-holed ses
sion after session by Congress for
years.
The reason in favor of having oues-
tons Of this character decided nv the
courts, Is that the courts are far more
likely to decide upon merit and from n
non-partisan standpoint. than is a I,ep-
islature consisting of partisan noliti-
clans. who. experience has siemonstrat-
co. are much more easily swayed by
party sympathy and policy than bv
eVidence and the principles of law and
justice.
IL Is suggested that 1t would be thor
oughly In the interests of all concerned
TX the Supreme Court were called unon
to pass upon each one of the election
questions which may be raised It's
Judgment would then be submitted IN
the Legislature and would. as a rule
be decisive there. The Legislature
would not be bound to accept the iudg-
ment of the Court: but IL such iudp-
ment was on its face fair and founded
on the evidence. II would take a large
amount Of moral courage on the part
OF the Legislature. to ignore it and to
decide the other way.