Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-12-08
ELECTION ARGUMENT
STEWART PRESENTS VIEWS
ON COURT JURISDICTION
INTERESTING SITUATION SHOULD
LAW NOT HAVE GIVEN COURT
JuRlSDiCTIoN-LAW NOT
REPEALED.

The Supreme Court at the afternoon
session proceeded to further consider
the election contest instituted by c. d.
Male on behalf of the Home Rule
rarity against the inspectors of election
and the Republican candidates. 7.
McCants Stewart made his argument
in reply to Assistant Attorney General
Peters upon the respondents plea to
the jurisdiction of the Court. He spoke
for one hour, opening with a citation
from an Ohio case, that the right to
contest an election has always been
held an invaluable one as a matter of
public policy, and the courts will not
be ousted of jurisdiction, unless by
some unequivocal constitutional or sta
tUtory provision.
Elections go to the foundation OF
organized society" said the attorney
land their fairness is safeguarded
was passed by a Legislature having in
II some well known lawyers. 1t was
examined by the Nestor of our bar"
on behalf of the Senate. The criticism
made by the Attorney General in his
argument here. that this law contains
no safeguard against mistake. against
fraud, against crime in the conduct of
our first County election, but leaves
the people of the Territory at the
mercy of any INSCRIPTIONS man. who
happens to smuggle himself into the
Office of inspector of election. Is a Cgi-
tpfg,,, In, xrhtgh tain tHp
charges the trainers of the law as
well as the violation with gross and
inexcusable tarelessness."
The attorney then went ON show
that the criticism is not well founded,
for It is expressly provided in Section
465 of the County Act, that "All the
provisions of law relating to general
elections are hereby declared to be
applicable 20 such election" The
Organic Act continues in force all Ha-
waiian laws not repealed. Among the
provisions relating to elections, which
were repealed, were the provisions
which made the Supreme Court sole
and exclusive judge of the election and
qualification of members OF the Leg
islature. This was done 10 harmonic
our laws with those sections of the
Organic Act making the Legislature
the Judge Of the election and qualinca'
ton of its members. Attention was
then called to section In our election
laws left unrepealed by the Organi,
Act, and overlooked by the Attorney
General, to the effect that "All Ques
tiOns as to the validity of any ballo
shall be decided Immediately and tn,
opinion of the majority of the inspec
tors shall be final and binding, subjec
to revision by the Supreme Court
and any 30 duly qualified voters ma!
file a petition in the Supreme Cour
setting forth why a decision of an.
Board Of Inspectors should be reversed
or changed"
The attorney said: II have neve
criticised as bad everything hav,
found in this Jurisdiction. have stoO
here for decentralization of power il
government, and for equal Opportunit
to all; but | have often joined witt
those admirIng everything as goo,
here and paid my humble tribute L
some OF our features of Jurisprudence
and of government. Now this statut
giving our courts the right to supel
wise the acts OF election inspectors |
one of the latest, as II Is one OF tn
best provisions of the election laws O
our most advanced States. | am SUI
prised that II Is seriously COntende
here that this Court has no jurisdiC
ton. When was the statute repealed
where do you find even an inicrenc
OF repeal? Wherein does II cOnlliC
with the Organic Act? Why, II tn
contention were correct, the inspec
ors could elect whOmeyer they pleas,
and next year, in The Fighting Se'
knees to Caesar, II We should happe
10 have him again lordng 1t over tn
people az in the county election no
in issue for he CQNfd hand out cert
icates without any reference to tn
ballots cast"
The attorney then cited numcrOu
authorities to show that the court
everywhere have the right to see tina
an election Is fairly conducted. An
then he took up the Attorney General
contention that petitioners remedy
before the Circuit Court, and shove
that it was a mistake to deal wit
the election provisions OF the Count
Act as II the law were in operation
All the mlsCOnception as to the juri
diction of this Court arises out OF ii
haste to put the County Act in fore
Supervisors are meeting out of tim
and the Attorney General is arguir
here that the Circuit Court should Sc
tie this contest when the County A.
requires the Circuit court to repO
its findings to the Board OF SuperyI
ors, a body which Is not yet in eXis
enCc.
The attorney contcnded that our fir
election was held under our gener
laws, as enacted in section OF Il
County Act, and an election Is n
L.