Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-04-04

II it were held that the Secretary
must pass upon the qualifications Of a
candidate, then his decision thereon
must be final. II he has the authority,
then he and he only has the right to
decide whose name or names shall go
upon the ballot.
Under the position he had taken,
however, the people were not without
remedy. BY the Organic Act the
Legislature was judge of the oualifica-
lions of its own members In case of
O disputed election the Legislature
would be bound to act in accordance
with the provisions of the Organic Act
relative to the qualifications of men,
bers. Any other course would be
revolutionary. II the Secretary had the
power claimed by counsel IL would cut
both ways. He would have the power
TO keep o: the ballot the name of a
qualified person. 1t would be ire
mendous power to put in the hands of
any man. The answer to the argu-
ment of absurdity was that the respon-
sibility for the nomination rested upon
the twenty-five electors nominating
and not upon the Secretary
Mr.. Kinney quoted decisions from
Dakota. Colorado and Michigan, be-
sides referring to the Nebraska case.
Among other disputes IN those States
was that of rival nominating conven-
tiOns. He contended there was not a
case cited where a court had gone to
the extent OF comforting such power as
that asked for by the other side. II
they were right, the Secretary would
have to go into matters not set up In
the nomination itself. In Nebraska the
nomination had to be acknowledged In
the same form as had a deed. The
petitioners contended that the Secre-
tary had a right to go on as a sort OF
cure-all authority to perform duties
not required by the statutes. They
could not put upon the Secretary the
responsibility for qualifications of q
candidate any more than upon the in.
spectors of election. The absurd things
assumed by counsel could not take
place II the people kept their eyes
open. Any danger of that kind was toe
remote for consideration.
Mr.. Robertson, beginning to close
the argument, asked what occasion
there was for the admitted duty OF
passing upon the papers II II was not
for the purpose Of carrying out the
| principles of the Australian ballot.
There was no answer to the position OF
the protesters that was not also an an
swer to the admission of the Secre-
tary. II he might get evidence to pass
upon one set of facts he was equally
empowered to get evidence for other
facts. At the very least he should
take cognizance Of notorious facts
and 1t was admitted that Mr.. DreieI
was legally eligible as a candidate. Had
the Secretary not power to go behind
the nomination paper to ascertain
whether the signature Of John Smith
was not forgery? II he had the pow
er to investigate some questions oil
fact, they contended he had the power
to investigate other facts. In the west
| 'lu htNlSlbhS HuONtuf Whlit NuS OulNSi
was obliged to place nominations of q
regularly held convention upon the
ballot, there was nothing to show tina
1t was not his duty to reject nomina
lions OF a pretended convention tina
was known TO have never been held.
Mr.. Robertson denied the alternativ,
propounded by Mr.. Cooper that tn,
concession of the power to pass upoI
qualifications involved the exclusion o
any appeal from his decisions. Tn,
Secretary would still be amenable L
the courts of law under mandamu
proceedings. In conclusion he argue,
against confounding the present issu,
with the provision Of the law that tn
Legislature was Judge of the qualifica
lions of its own members. They wer
now dealing with the stage of nomi
nations. The high controlling princi
pie In this submission was that wha
led to absurdity should not be upheld
Chief Justice Frear announced tina
the court would endeavor to render
decision early in the day. He suppose
there was not much time left.
Mr.. Cooper said the ballots wer
printed and those for Waimanal
should be sent by the mail closing at
o'clock tomorrow morning. II his posi-
ton were overruled, ballots woul
have to be prepared.