Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-10-07


whatever under either the election or
the county law, and not only would
there be two lists, but the two would
he made up on different bases,-one on
the basis OF conditions in 1902; the
other on that of conditions in 1903. Or,
should the Boards make new lists Of
all, but first place upon 1t all the
names registered in 1902? II so, the
/ lists would similarly be made UP in
part on one basis and in part on anoth.
err and those on the old lists would be
registered without personal appllca-
] ton, contrary to law, &C., &c. Or, II
a new list should be made. then icon.
sidering merely the question OF the
construction and not OF the validity OF
these provisions OF the cainty acO
since Section 462 prescribes who may
vote at this election, the Boards could
register only those therein described,
namely, those on the lists OF 1902,
which would bring us back to where
we started. But not to proceed fur.
Their along this line, we may conclude
( by saying that If any new names could
be registered under the general Sec
I tions 465 and 466, then the particular
provision of Section 462 by which AL
persons qualified to vote" at this cleo
ton are to be ascertain by reference
to the lists of 1902 would be nullified.
It is contended further that II the
: County Act does not permit persons to
vote who are qualified except in the
matter OF registration, the law Is in.
valid in that respect. II is true that
some courts have held that where the
Constitution prescribes the qualfica.
lions of voters and does not include
registration among them. the Legisla'
ture cannot add that. although II Is
said to be the better opinion that the
Legislature may, as a matter OF regu'
lation. require registration In such
cases and even prevent persons from
voting who become otherwise qualified
after the last session of the Board OF
Registration and before election day,
provided that interval Is not unreason
ably long. See 10 Am. & Eng. Enc
OF L., End Ed, 5Sl; State v. Butts. 81
Kans. 537: 2 Pac. 6lS; We'll V. Cal
houn, 25 Fed. $685. People Hoffman
l16 III. 5s7. If the provision of Sec
, ton 462 OF the County Act were con
, trary to the provisions OF the Organic
a Act in this respect, the question nigh
4 arise whether the result would not b.
that there could be no election rattle
n than that the Boards could registe
n others than those who are In term
A permitted to vote. But In the presen
@ case all question of the validity OF tn
3 law in this respect is removed by tn
n fact that, as above shown, the Organi
= Act itself in effect provides that tn
q list Of 1902 shall alone be used at til
q election of November 3, 1903.
4 It Is also contended that registrt
5, ton is only regulation or prerequ
y site or condition and not a qualified
h. ton. There are several passages
h the Rules referred to that favor thi
n contention. although. as pointed OF
II above. Sections 60 and so Of the o
IA ganic Act expressly refer to registr
n. ton as a qualification. But 1t Is In
4. material which IL Is, for the Organ
n. Act (Section 62) requires the voter
If this election to "be subject to all Il
a conditions" as well as to possess
IL the qualifications" required OF vote
S, for Representatives. one Of which
n. registration in 1902, and Section 462
st the County Act makes the list OF ~,
III the sole test of "all persons qualih'
X. TO vote" at this election.
SO It Is suggested by counsel on bot
ut sides that the Court express an OPT
n. ion also upon the question. not pr
n. scented in this case, but which 1t Ia !
Id timated might be presented In anoth
h. case, whether the petitioner Is
% "elector" of the county, within Il
Id meaning of Section II of the Coun
ne Act, so as to be qualified for electiC
es as a member OF the County Board
ne Supervisors, for which he has be-
en- nominated. This question not only
or not presented in this case but has N
is been argued. We feel that we shou
e, express no opinion upon II.
e. The order of the Circuit Judge a
ut pealed from Is set aside and the ca
On remanded to him for any further pi
DIS ceedings that may be proper consii
of emily with this opinion.
ed r. w. Breckons and NJ. F. Pross
2? for petitioner; Attorney General l.. A
lid drews and J. d. Willard for respor
its ents.