Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-10-09
DRE|ER CASE RULED
REASON FAIRCHILD'S
PAPERS WERE ACCEPTED
OLD SPECIAL ELECTION DECISION
OF SUPREME COURT-REGIS-
TRAR MUST ACCEPT
PAPERS.

George II. FairChilds name as can |
didate for Supervisor, County of IA
uai. was admitted in nomination no |
outstanding the decision of the Su.
prome Court against his suit to com.
pei the Board of Registration to sit to
allow him to register as a votcr-on the
strength of the Supreme Courts deci'
sion last year in the Dreier matter, At.
tUrnCy General Andrews and Governor
Dole on this basis, advising Electoral
Registrar auckland to receive the
name in nomination.
The Dreier decision referred to was
In VIM. w. Wright VS.. II. E. Cooper,
Secretary of the Territory. and was
given on April 3, 1902, Chief Justice
Frear writing the decision, the sylla.
bus of which is as follows:
Under the provisions of the cleo.
ton law that candidates shall be NOM
mated by writing signed by not less
than twenty-five qualified electors Of
the district and deposited together
with S25 with the Secretary of the
Territory not less than a prescribed
time before the election, and that the
ballots shall contain the names of all
candidates so nominated and no other
name, the Secretary cannot lawfully
inquire into and pass upon the qualifi.
cations of a candidate or decline to
place his name upon the ballots If he
is duly nominated, even though he, the
Secretary, may believe him to be dis
qualified, nor can the courts compel
him to do so--although the Secretary
may inquire into and pass upon the
question of due nomination and omit
from the ballots the name Of a candi.
date If the law prescribing the require.
ments of a due nomination has not
been complied with and may be COM
PEELED by the courts to perform his
duty in that respect"
In the body of the opinion appears
the following relevant to the case in
point:
Perhaps the most instructive case
that has come to our notice in this
connection Is that of the People VS..
Board of Canvassers, 1873 n. Y. 800.
In that case candidate for Senator
was ineligible but had received the
greatest number of votes. The State
Board of Canvassers declined to issue
a certificate of election to him. He ap
piled to the court for a writ OF man
damus to compel them to do so. The
court, consisting of seven judges, was
J. unanimously of the opinion that the
: duty of the Board so far as II wen
was ministerial and enforceable by tn,
J. courts, but that il could not go behint
l. the returns and inquire into the eligi
. bility of the candidate. The question
$ then arose whether. the court SHOULD
l. compel the Board to issue a certificat,
r OF election to one who was clearly In
J. eligible. The question was the con
n verse of what II is in the present case
1t was what the question would b,
u here II the Secretary had declined L
u place Mr.. Dreiers name on the ballots
< and Mr.. Dreier had brought proceed
G ings to compel him to place the NAM
u on the ballots. The majority OF thu
D. court. five judges, applying to tina
case the general principle that man
u damus should not issue to accomplish
% O wrong or the violation of a constitu
u tional provision or except to secure o
protect a clear legal right, went int
the question Of eligibility as n neces
sary preliminary question to be deter
mined as basis for determining tn
other question and, having found tina
the candidate was ineligible, decline
III to allow the writ to compel the Boar
II to issue a certificate of election. o
g. course, the candidate could withou
" the certificate go before the Senat
e. and there establish his right, II he ha
"a a right, to a seat The minority, tw
10 Judges. were of the opinion that, 4
N view Of the constitutional provisio
u making each house the judge OF tn
% elections returns, and qualifications Q
j. It's own members, the court should no
% go into the question Of eligibility a
~ ALL but should compel the Board (
u issue the certificate of election, no
withstanding the general rule tina
le mandamus should not issue except I
II protect clear right. In other words
p according to the reasoning OF the ms
H. jority in that case, the court shout
,e not compel the Secretary to omit Nj
VI Dreier's name and should not compe
10 him to place 1t on the ballots, althoug
D. It was his ministerial duty to do Sc
IT According to the reasoning OF the m
rs nority in that case, the court shoul
not only not compel the Secretary I
omit the name but should, II he di
- omit 1t, compel him to place 1t upo
a. the ballot"