The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-12-01

fore the court would De Inat OF the
Pauoa precinct.
KINNEY'S OBJECTION.
w. A. Kinney, when the court re-
sumed it's sitting at 1870, argued
against count of the Pauoa ballots.
Brown had only claimed that there
were some little irregularities there
and did not know who would gain in
a count. Only two ballots were said
to be wrong at Waialua. These pre-
cincts exhausted all of Browns claims
The Kakaako count did not overcome
Iaukea's majority though it gave
Brown an unexpected gain, from
causes that were as great d surprise
to Brown as to Iaukea.
Pauoa, for anything that Brown had
shown, was not in a different position
from any other precinct Certain prin-
cipIes were followed by inspectors in
counting which may have been a little
loose. There was no provision in the
law for a recount but only for a con-
test, which must have some facts for
it's basis. Although he thought Brown
was a little ahead, that should not be
considered.
Chief Justice Frear remarked that
he understood Iaukea was one ahead.
Mr.. Kinney said that fact made his
point stronger. If they could pick out
a precinct here and another one there,
all the barriers against a recount would
be gone. Brown had watchers at ev
cry precinct to watch every vote and
record every irregularity. If he came
into court and showed that a watcher
was shut out, not given time to see
the ballots, the case would be different
brown ed n
and was still one vote short That
sort of thing made it easy for anyone
to get a recount. He says there is one
vote wrong in a precinct and then finds
something that he did not expect.
Iaukea in the process was shut out
! from selecting precincts. There were
only two votes left as claimed in
Browns information and with regard
to Waialua the grounds We're not COW
cred in the petition. OF course it was
in the interests of Brown to continue,
but the law did not contemplate such
a fishing excursion. They might run
neck and neck to Christmas, Iauked
being one ahead to start with. With
the Kakaako experiment it was prom
Using for Brown.
GEARS REPLY.
! Geo. D. Gear submitted that the sta
tus of the case required that the count
should go on. Kinney had admitted
that with only three precincts gone
through Iaukeas majority was cut
down from fourteen to one. In Ka-
kaako IA ballots were shown improper
ly voted for Iaukea. True, six were
improperly voted for Brown, but so far
as the count had gone irregularities
had been shown, proving that a proper
count of ballots was not had in Nov
ember. Twenty-three of Iaukea's ball
lots were judicially declared improper
ly counted. How then could the court
allow it to go on record that Iaukea
had been elected by a majority of a.
when the court knew he had no such
majority? The court must see that
the result would be greatly changed
1t was not shown that the tabulation
of votes was incorrect. Iaukea was
now entitled to certif1catiOn of election
by majority of only one. This was
not a matter for Brown and Iaukea
alone, but the community had a right
to know who had a majority of legal
f-otes.
There were seven votes for Brown
in the Kakaako bag which had not
been counted-ballots cast for Brown