The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-11-24
DEsHA AND THE SENATE.

We believe the Senate has made
mistake in it's treatment of Desha'
contest of the senatorial election on
Hawaii.
In a formal petition to the Senate,
Mr.. Desha alleges that at the count OF
ballots in Hilo, three members of the
election board arrived at three differ
ent totals, and that the total giving
him the lowest number was adopted as
the official count. This count gave
Paris one majority. If one of the other
counts had been adopted, Desha would
have tied Paris, while the third would
have given him one majority. These
undisputed facts throw so strong a
doubt upon the correctness of the count
that no living man knows today Wheth-
err Paris or Desha was elected, or
whether they received a tie vote. Under
these circumstances the Senate owes 1t
not only to Mr.. Desha and his support
ers. who are shown to be at least with
in one of the full strength of the party
on Hawaii, but to itself. to ascertain
which man was elected. 1t is cues
ton of right not of expediency; of fact,
not of harmony.
Under the monarchy and the republic,
disputed elections were decided by the
Supreme Court. The organic act
transfers that power to the respective
houses of the legislature. Under the
old law an investigation was a matter
OF right and could not be prevented by
either the court or the legislature.
Rights should be as sacredly guarded
now as then. The Senate has the pow
err to refuse to investigate a petition OF
this character, but it does not have the
right to do so. To refuse to act, simply
because the power to refuse exists, is
neither just nor polite.
The fact that Paris and Desha are
both Republicans seemed to some of
the Senators to be a reason for refusing
to investigate. This is a strange prop
osition. The argument is that If the
contestant had been a Home Ruler,
then it would have been proper to con-
against Republican, that it was prop
er to ignore it. This is partisanship
with vengeance, that a political oppo-
nent should be given more eonsidera-
ton than political friend.
The only sound position to take is
that Desha's politics has nothing to do
wall elected Desha Senator, he and
they are entitled to have him seated
regardless of whether he is Republi-
can or a Home Ruler. Likewise if a
doubt exists as to whether he was
elected or not, he and they are entitled
as of right to have the question re-
spectfully considered and decided. The
party cannot afford to affront its sup
porters by refusing them a hearing, any
more than it can afford to be unjust tc
a political opponent.
which will be cited as a guide in the
future. 1t should be careful to make
precedent which is founded on broad
principles of right. Such course viii
strengthen the party = the opposite
course will weaken it
The argument is made that the court
instead of the legislature should settle
contested elections on the ground thai
the former decides from a judicia
standpoint, after investigating the
facts, while the latter ignores the facts
and decides from a partisan stand.
point. There can be no better evidence
of the correctness of this argument
than the action of the Senate in the
case in question. 1t should in justice
to the people of Hawaii and in the in
terest of sound precedent and party