Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-12-10

for contests by thirty qualified voters,
as well as by candidates, and in the
Supreme Court, and sets forth what
may be contested and the procedure.
Even If 1t were necessary ordinarily
that there should be words of eXclu.
sion In order to exclude the jurisdic-
tion of the courts. It is clear in this
case from all the action taken by Con.
gress that it was the intention of Con.
gress to exclude the jurisdiction Of the
courts.
Since therefore the provisions now
relied on in Act OF the Laws of 1S9i.5
&C. L. Sec. 1892 ct seq. were not in
force so far as elections of members
OF the Legislature were concerned
when the County Act was enacted, IL
remains to be considered whether they
were in force as to other elections, ii
any. This seems to us to be the cru.
cial point in this branch of the case.
Said Act s consists of two parts.
One part includes the first six sections
and relates to offenses against the
election laws. II Is Chapter Sc OF the
Penal Laws. That part clearly was
not repealed by the Organic Act even
as to Legislative elections and doubt.
less is made applicable to county cleo.
tons by the terms of the County Act,
even II It would not be applicable of
! itself. The other part includes the
other ten sections and related to con-
tested elections. 1t is Chapter n Of
the Civil Laws.
The title OF the Act is, "An Act Re.
lating to Elections and Contested
Seats in the Legislature" There is
no doubt that the portion Of this title
which relates to contested seats" is
! limited to contested seats in the Leg.
| islature.
Looking at the question merely as
one of construction, the title may be
+ resorted TO for the purpose of ascer.
tanning the meaning Of the body Of
the Act but especially is this true
when there Is a provision like that
found in Section 4j Of the Organic Act.
Myer v. Car Co, 102 U. S. /, IL. The
title in the present case certainly goes
very far to show that only contests of
| legislative elections were intended.
Furthermore, as already stated there
were no other elections provided for
or contemplated when the Act was
passed. There were, moreover no
laws that could apply of their own
force to any other elections at that
time, even If other elections should be
provided for.
II is true that the Act contains some
| expressions that are general in their
terms and that taken by themselves
might cover county election. but there
was no occasion to expressly confine
them to legislative elections under the
circumstances. and they must be read
in the light of the other parts of the
Act, its title, other laws in pari ma.
terra and the circumstances under
which the Act was passed. Taking all
these things into consideration, II is
our opinion that the Act was not in
| tended to apply to contests other than
those arising out of legislative cleo
tons. and that such intention Is suff'
GENTLY expressed. and that the court
is without jurisdiction in this case.
The petition is dismissed with costs
T. McCants Stewart and c. w. Ash
ford for petitioners.
Deputy Attorney General f. c. Pet
ers. and w. T. Rawlins for respond
ents, except as follows:
II. Hogan for II. C. Birbe, Jr.; f. VI
Watson for F. Harvey; w. A. Whiting
for c. p. laukea.