The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-12-23
WHY THE CONTEST
WAS KNOCKED OUT
Views Expressed by the Three
JuristS Who Heard the
Case.

The decision of the Supreme Court
in the mayoralty contest, and the rea-
sons for II stated orally at the time are
here given. The contest in non-Iegal
but effective language, was thrown out
of court. Chief Justice HartweI rend-
ering the decision SAID
The opinion Of the court IS that the
petition must be dismissed upon the
ground, amongst other things referred
to in the rulings upon the questions
argued yesterday, that it appears from
the testimony Of the petitioners that
there are not thirty of them having
knowledge or information with refer
enee TO alleged Irregularities in any
one voting precinct. The opinion upon
this matter, as well as upon the others
ruled upon this morning, win be pre-
pared and fled. l viii now state a few
considerations which has led the major
ity Of the court to this conclusion.
To begin with the Australian ballot
system in force here, which has been
adopted in the states gradually during
the last twenty years, has undoubtedly
accomplished what it was intended to
do in removing a great many of the
opportunities previously existing for
the exercise Of coercion, intimidation
and cheating at the polls, and it is a
significant fact that in the contested
election eases before the court l be
lieve / am correct in saying there has
been no instance showing actual fraud
as contradistinguished from the legal
fraud resulting from violations of the
regulations OF the voting law, the OPP
portunities stin remaining, and as long
as human nature continues they viii
remain-as long as it continues as it is
of mistakes-honest mistakes-Tnade
on the part Of the officials-of the in
spectors-whether they be in counting
wrongly or in impFepszly or erroneous
ly rejecting or accepting ballots for the
one side OF thesofber- And it is also
true that in no. community is the re-
suit, especially in a close contest, GO
ing to be accepted with satisfaction
by the losing party. How can they
do so knowing the faIlibility of human
natureZfhe liability to mistakes of per
feetly unHght and honest men, Con-
sequently ydaa4 Wi find, I believe, in
the states and the other territories gen
orally that there are statutes, which |
we have not, which authorize and re-
auire a recount=aRd a reexamination Of |
the ballots e5ber upon the request or
petition Of the defeated party or of a
stated number Of the electors, The
tribunal which entertains those petit |
lions verifies the Official results as a
matter OF simple counting for one
thing; they hear any objections made
at the time Of the denomination of |
the ballots as TO the validity of special
ballots-and pass
upon those objections. Exceptions may
be taken by either side to the ruling
of that tribunal on matters of law
which are taken up Ike ordinary bills
of exceptions in actions at law to an
appellate court which passes upon them.
l feel so strongly upon the natural and
proper wishes of any community for
such tribunal that ii is my intention
to recommend an enactment on the
subject 10 the legislature, but as the
law now stands the legislature has seen
fit TO intrust 10 this court the serious
responsibility Of deciding whether
contest is presented-eauses of contest
or not, and if so, the duty of re-
examining the ballots. That function
was formerly performed with reference
TO elective representatives by the legis.
islature Of Hawaii. Why the legisla-
ture transferred that duty to the Su-
preme Court I cannot say. It mag be
i should Ike to feel that it was
because il thought that this court
would be Of a non-partisan nature and
that It might safely enough rely upon
its integrity. But however that may
be. there is the responsibility and we
have to meet il. We have no time to
examine statutes elsewhere to see what
are their requirements Of petitions. I'm
Ter this title ELECTIONS" and subtitle
Contests" our statute gives either
the losing candidate or thirty Of the
qualified voters 4 any election district
he right 70 fle q petition in the Su- /
creme Court Of the Territory setting
forth any. cause CT causes why the de-
.ision Of any board of inspectors should
be reversed. corrected or changed.
Now what : contestl It Is not an
imaginary afair-not that certain vot-
rs think there probably were errors
md il Is almost sure that there were
md always VII te errors. Is contest
5ased on mere telief or upon inforna- /
ion more OF less defnite2 That IS TO
av. is it 10 be q guessing contest We Y
,s7-e all agreed that Il can not be. that