The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1906-12-07

should go over the ballots OF the first
two or three precincts examined and
scrutinize them in the light of their
later rulings.
Justice Hartwell started in his chair
Mt this suggestion and spoke to the
Chief Justice. who interrupted Mr.
Kinney to say that Justice Hartwell
had already suggested the same thins
and 1t was under the courts consider
alton.
in counting the first precinct" the
Chief Justice said, I'VE announced that
the decisions on certain ballots were
of preliminary nature"
Mr.. Kinney spoke of the experience
the court had in counting the ballots
of the 9th District, saying 1t would be
injustice to both sides If the court
did not go over the ballots first count
ed with the same care as 1t had the
last.
To appreciate the position of Iaukea
one must consider the way an outsider
would look at Ii. The law has inn
posed certain safeguards upon the ball
lots. 1t was required that the chair
man of inspectors must seal the pack
ages with his own SEAL" but the in
vestigation has shown there was very
little of that done. The law pu; 1t
there as vital protection for those
having an interest in the ballots. I'm
doubtedly the county clerk was care
less about the ballots. When the fact
was shown the cry was raised that
they were trying to wreck Buffandeau,
the assistant clerk. 1t was not just
to say that this was matter of sus-
picion. What had the law to do with
suspicion. I'VE have the right to be
protected from the appearance OF evil"
Justice Hartwell asked Mr.. Kinney
II the deeds passing through his law
office usually, or indeed ever, bore per-
sonal seals.
Mr.. Kinney did not recollect such
seals, but understood the law to mean
that 1t must be distinguishing seal,
one that would enable the inspector
Enthusiastically to identify it as his
own
In conclusion Mr.. Kinney argued
strongly In favor of new election
should the courts final review of the
ballots be unfavorable to Iaukea. A
new election, in such a case, was nee
essary to give recognition to the will
of the people-unmstakab though
ineffectively indicated as 1t may have
been at the general election.
MIR. GEAR CLOSES.
Mr.. Gear closed for Mr.. Brown. He
threw chief emphasis on the letter of
the statute relative to ballots. Deci-
sions in other jurisdictions had no ap-
plication. The statute was plain here
and the court must follow the statute.
This statute was made in 1905
after we had a county law and when
they were making another county law.
The court had RICH to reverse its
own ruling which was made before
this election, yet he did not think
there We're more than half dozen of
these ballots--with votes for too many
pervisors-rejected by the court, but
there were hundreds of them rejected
by the inspectors under the courts
former ruling. The court could not in
terpolate and words into the law, or
throw out any words, even If Mr.. Kin
ney's reason or judgment was shocked
by the laws application.
Mr.. Kinney denied he had made any
comments on the courts rulings in
the investigation.
Mr.. Gear said If Mr.. Kinney did not
Mr.. Edings did.
Justice Hartwell said they We're not
going to decide whether anybody was
shocked, but what was the law.
Chief Justice Judd, at 445 after
some minutes in consultation with his
announced that the hear
ing was continued until Friday morn
Ing at o'clock. |
SOME EVIDENCE.
George, Barker, inspector in the Sth
Of the 5th, was recalled yesterday
He could not state that the
ballots were in the same condition as
on election night. He did not see
when counting the ballots the double
for the rivals. Jarrett and
Vida, on ballot rejected by the court.
Hanapi. a watcher who tailed the
vote in the Sth of the 9Th. testified that
ne challenged the vote of Maiao as
me who lost his civil rights in 1891
by conviction for crime and had not
iad then restored. When Maiao came
,ut from the booth he said he had
'ottu tHc
that he voted for Frank
Harvey for supervisor-at-large.
Mr.. Kinney offered to prove that
lanes Moenahele, at the time he voted
n the 9Th of the 4th, was not 81 years
II age. He was challenged but was
Flowed to vote. The voter claimed
lie was Fl In January last, but It
would be shown he would not be Fl
Until February next.
Mr.. Gears objections to both these
howings as evidence We're sustained,
he inspectors being governed by the
egister OF voters Justice Hartwell
aid 1t might be competent evidence
n quo warranto proceedings.
James A. Thompson. clerk OF court.
ave evidence OF the tally he had
ept. which showed tie. On cross
by Mr.. Gear. however. a
omparison with the courts own rec
I'd revealed an error In addition in
'hOmpson's tally. The count was az
bove given, Brown one vote ahead.
The Chief Justice suggested to Mr..
Kinney that the official registration
SITS should be procured, as the law re-
uired a tallying of the number OF bal ,
ITS In the box with that on the lists.
Chief Clerk auckland was according ,
: subpoenaed to bring the Territorial
lection packages into court. ,