The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-12-06
IAUKE::A
CONTINUED from Page One1


brown, II was submitted must esta b
fish his case with a preponderance o
evidence one or five or dozen vote
in such rigid investigation of III
ballots did not make a preponderanc
OF evidence one way or the other. /
there was a recount there must be ;
decision one way or the other on ever
ballot. 1t was a question of the court
| conviction as a matter of fact TIL,
court must ask itself if there are no
a number of ballots here which are 81
close in point Of legality that it can no
overdue the returns of the inspectors
1t is at liberty to say, 1--WE find no pre-
/ ponderance of evidence" The re-
! spondent was entitled to the benefit OF
the same rule of preponderance of evi.
/ Gence Which the court itself applieA
! and juries are Instructed to apply. to
civil cases ar law.
FURTHER SCRUTINY SUGGESTED
Mr.. Kinney suggested that since the
investigation began, the court had been
through process of education in the
counting of these ballots. It's later ruI-
ings were modified in some respects in
comparison with its earlier rulings He
therefore suggested that the court
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
al this suggestion and spoke to the
Chief Justice, who interrupted Mr..
Kinney to say that Justice Hartwell
n a cd
and it 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 5th District, saying it would be
injustice to both sides if the court
did not go over the ballots first count
ed with the same care as it had the
last.
To appreciate the position of Iaukea
one must consider the way an outsider
would look at it. The law has inn
posed certain safeguards upon the bal
lots. 1t was required that the chair
man of inspectors must seal the pack
ages with Ibis own SEAL but the in
Vestigation has shown there was very
little of that done. The law put it
there as a vital protection for those
having an interest in the ballots. I'm
doubleday 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 a 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
if 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 it must be a distinguishing seal,
one that would enable the inspector
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-unmistakabl though
lneffectively indicated as it may have
been at the general election.
MR.. 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
hey were making another county law.
The court had a RICH to reverse its
own ruling which was made before
his election, yet he did not think
here We're more than half a dozen of
hese ballots-with votes for too many
pervisors-rejected by the court, but
here We're hundreds of them rejected
0y the inspectors under the courts
'ormer ruling. The court could not in
erpolate and words into the law, or
brow out any words, even if Mr.. Kin
leys reason or judgment was shocked
~ the laws application.
Mr.. Kinney denied he had made any
comments on the courts rulings in
he investigation. /
Mr.. Gear said if Mr.. Kinney did not
dr. Edings did.
Justice Hartwell said they were not
,oing to decide whether anybody was
hooked, but what was the law.
Chief Justice Judd. at 4:45, after
ONE minutes in consultation with his
ssociates, announced that the hear
ng was continued until Friday MORN
ng at o'clock.
SOME EVIDENCE.
George Barker, inspector in the Sth
f the 5th, was recalled yesterday
corning He could not state that the
allots were in the same condition as
n election night. He did not see
hen counting the ballots the double
larking for the rivals. Jarrett and
ida, on a ballot rejected by the court
Hanapi, a watcher who tailed the
ote in the Sth of the 5th, testified that
e challenged the vote of Ma1ao as
ne who lost his civil rights in 1881
Y conviction for crime and had not
4