The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-02-01
'IAUKEA'S
CONTEST.
Hearing Before the
Committee on
Elections.
(Mail Special to the Advertiser.)

(Mail Special to the Advertiser.)
| WASHINGTON, D. c., January IS
1.-The election contest of the Delegate
from Hawaii was taken up for argu
ment before Elections Committee No
I3, Wednesday, January 10. The com
mittee probably will not report till
next Wednesday. 1t will be in favor
of the Delegate. The hearingawas dis
posed of promptly, lasting through two
continuous sessions of two consecutive
| days. Mr.. Curtis P Iaukea, the con
testant, of course, did not appear, but
was represented by ex-Judge G. A. Gal
braith, who arrived here a few days
| in advance and registered at the Riggs
House. Ex-Attorney General E. P.
| Dole also appeared for the contestant,
but took no part in the argument, ex-
| cept to answer a few questions in re-
| gard to local conditions. Delegate Ka-
| lanianaole was present at all of the
| hearings, accompanied by his counsel,
Gen. w. W. Dudley. AT the request
| of Gen. Dudley, Mr.. George B. McClel-
| Ian was also entered as of counsel.
The first day was occupied largely
by argument of Judge Galbraith in
kea. He followed the exact outline of
his brief, prefacing his remarks by
withdrawal of the charge in regard to
the use of money for bribery and also
the charge that the numbers on the
ballot were entered upon the record OF
voters. At an early point in his argu-
ment, the questions of Chairman Dris-
coll, of New York, and Representative
Humphrey, of Seattle, " Wasn., led him
also to concede that the contestant
could not be seated but that he could
only ask that the election be set aside
and new one ordered Judge Gal
braith s argument consisted almost
wholly of reading from his brief and
extracts from the printed testimony of
the case.
The hearings of the second day,
Thursday, January Il, were far the
more spirited. After few additional
questions to Judge Galbraith by the
committee, the argument for the con-
testee was opened by Mr.. Mcclellan,
who made a general statement of the
facts, outlining the ground of defense
He devoted the larger part of his argu-
ment to the demonstrating the efforts
contestant Iaukea had made to mis- /
represent the facts, particularly in re-
gard to government employees and the |
expenditure of the loan fund appro- |
priation by the Department of Public |
Works.
az Il.
fact that the government employees
were continued in service after the
election, the same as before the cleo
tion, and showed that there was no
general dismissals of laborers either
on account of their politics or other
wise. The fact that Mr.. Iaukea actual
ly received larger percentage of
votes on the numbered ballots than he
did in the territory as a whole was
also brought out and questions of com
indicated that this is
by them as very decisive evi-
dence. The actual ballots. which have
been brought on here. were taken into
the committee room so that members,
who wanted to, could count these bal
lots for themselves, and verify the de-
tailed table of figures, contained in the
brief of Delegate kalanianaole.
zen. Dudley, who IS regarded as the
BEST attorney in Washington on eIec-
ion cases, followed in a telling legal ,
argument for the contestee. Tn an
'wer to question, raised by Repre- 1
Gill, of Maryland, as to what
authority in law there was for holding t
my election for delegate to Congress
rom Hawaii, Gen. Dudley quoted the t
eport of the Congressional Committee
N the protest made against the first l
eating of Delegate Robert w Wilcox /
Therein the ruling was made that the
allure of the territorial Legislature or
f Congress to enact detailed laws for i
Congressional election would not G
,~nv"nt the seating of a delegate, I
lected by the Territory in good faith Il
I regular general election and un-
er the general authority of the or t
anic act and of Hawaiian election t
,ws.
A further point was made by Gen.
CONTINUED on Page 3D.