The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-12-12
Continued from Page SIX

ton of the of the spirit provision qualities
tnguishing mark than The
other be- but symbol identification the
other Even when each taken
and only why cannot be counted is
many equally good that it is impossible
of the they extremely
improbable that too many names in one class would be marked tor
all officers OF that class 1t least question whether
provisions OF the statute should be given meaning
which relates marks and symbols whereby the ballot may be
that Any ballot which appears names words or marks written
said that the statute was less liberal
other and that if its provisions relating marks to be
literally dranchsed held that
should be read if had attached to the qualification that
accidentally and not for an evil purpose was
OF the and that the broad provision quoted should be con
practically Identifying Distinguishing
marks Moreover the blanket clause question refers to marks
election law and there provision
in that against voting for too many There is 1T true provision
which by reference incorporates the general eec
how senators and respectively
is provision the county officers
Oh @ on @ ed n4 h atf ot by prob
tory the is by general law and tor the reason
sbe to ascertain number OF voted
for the vote should be m M se g too
deemed by the legislature to be included
R IN Wpm 81 TX Ind 56 State a. Sad IS 1871 although
these decisions are precisely point nasuc the statutes
differed respects The fact if it is fact that the
first paragraph apply to county elections
urged against this the theory that II does not
paragraph which does apply for the latter must Apply III m
in which is used with reference to senatorial amd h 6f
paragraph well the sixth paragraph IS mercy
The fifth paragraph Of this which the paragraph
remaining could possibly have appeaon may be b G
paragraph additional that by its terms
e othe way than those already including that OF
Young court little more year ago ruled during the
OF the trial Fna"dS adams that the entire nao
much any, argument counsel and never reduced TO wi
reported the having been no M sme reason for
ing to it other classes OF decisions
been a noured and Which, therefore be disturbed except
Tor we rsason g dsf o ON uer that
question of practice which might be OF no great
f should be certain and that it should be the best
1t the seFI er OF will e erio o affect the very por
OF the elective franense pl g of vn effect to
should be reversed tor the purpose 81 giving
Counsel for the petitioner having permitted request
been voted class after the opinions OF the 1u @ @
see no reason for altering foregoing views The case OF Da
MUTTON other points difference, the contained express IAN
guage that if more persons were b it is inter-
ezting to note earlier in MARYLAND hao De
G fa or found any more printed any Of them
than there ought to be , for s. wears been uniformly
m that the ballots which names had been voted
for one class reed m by Counsel Charles
as why the court should hG d hat the amendment clearly
onired different construction. a+ ~ ,+d
4he be county OF election held NoymbeT
It16 for the term beginning at II o clock noon OH W " '
Gear and E A Dout httn for ,5 pf'nsF btfoo
w a kinney. w s. Edngs W. A. Nh'tis anu J. i@s''''
for respondent uARrvEIL. J., cONCURRING
::f +he county act that general laws and rules
he election OF and representatives OF ole i
ritoTy shall apply re r ordtd sec 90 hrs
impression that the law If more
voted for on than there are o C4in OF the entire