The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-01-08

of Senators and Representatives of the
Territory shall apply in the election or
city and county officers wherever an
plicable except as herein provided. - II
may be fairly contended, think that
the election districts prescribed bv GEN
eral law would apply in the election OF
city and county officers were there ma
other provision in the Municipal Act ON
the subject. Section , of the Municjnal
Act, however, provides that the Civ and
County OF Honolulu sis hereby divided
into six districts,'' naming them. In
each one of these districts an election
is held for city and county officers for
most OF whom electors of a particular
district vote in conjunction with the
electors Of the other districts, the sole
exception being the deputy sheriff. who
are elected solely by the electors of a
/ particular district. An election district
is one within the prescribed limits of
I which an election is held The Mimi
( cipal Act, then, having divided the city
and county into districts and provided
! for elections In each of those districts
! it follows that, when it allows thirty
| voters of an election district to contest
an election, the election district referred
/ to is a district which the act itself nro-
vides and in which it also provides for
/ an election. This view is strengthened
when the County Act, from which the
| identical language in question is taken,
| is considered. That act divided the
County of Oahu into the same six dis
tricts as the Municipal Act, all of the
supervisors, except one who was elected
at large, then being elected from differ
emit districts. Under that act it could
not be said that there were four cleo
ton districts for all of the supervisors
but one, six election districts for dep
uty sheriffs and but one election dis
trict for the remaining officers. The
same language having been used in the
later act as in the earlier one, it is
nothing but natural that the same mean
ing was intended.
Furthermore, by Section 76 of the
Municipal Act, certain number of
legal voters may institute proceedings
for the removal of officers, and the ex-
preston there is not voters of any one
election district but voters "within
the city and county, which tends to
show that the geographical limits of
election districts mentioned in the act
and of the city and county are not
| the same, otherwise the same words
would have been used in both places
| A similar distinction is contained in
| Sections II and 90 of the County Act
| The contention of the petitioners,
which was upheld by the majority of
| the court, that the district intended
was the one designated by Section 1
! af m rt &c ole 70 az
| because that section does not specify
any district at all.
The argument of petitioners that if
| there are six election districts thirty
voters of one district may contest an
election in another district is not
sound. What the thirty voters of one
| district may do is to contest an cleo
| ton for a particular Office in that dis
trict in which they are qualified to
vote, even if the electors of other dis
tricts also are entitled to vote for
the same Office.
The petition in this case not setting
out that thirty of the petitioners are
duly qualified voters of any particular
election district, the demurrer should
be sustained. But as it appeared from
the preliminary examination of the pc
titioners that at least thirty of them
We're qualified voters of one election
district, namely, Honolulu, and as
therefore, enough of the petitioners
have in fact the qualifications re
quired by statute, the petition IS amen
able in that regard Us eye, 412), and
I consequently concur in the overrul
ing of the demurrer. / also concur IL
the various other rulings set forth II
the opinion Of the Chief Justice.
Dissenting Opinion of Circuit Judge
De Bolt.
I respectfully dissent from the opin
ion and Judgment of the court in dis
missing the petition, particularly as re
CARDS the circumstances under which i
was dismissed. | concur, however, il
, the opinion of Mr.. Chief Justice Hart
well in overruling the demurrer.
, With regard to the petition, it will
be observed that the jurisdictional re
quirements prescribed by the statute
, (Act 11S, Oh. II. Laws 1900, relativ'
to election contests, are:
/. That the petition be fled b.
{ thirty duly qualified voters of any elec
, ton district.
| 4. 1HaB 1t SET 1OIin d CduSS U
causes why the decision of any boart
, of inspectors should be reversed, cor
, rected or changed.
8. That it be filed within thirt.
days after the election.
, 4. That it be accompanied by de
! post of $25 for costs of court.
{ The petitioners complied with al
| these requirements; and the petition
having been held legally sufficient OF
, demurrer, and the respondent having
thereupon filed his answer, an issue o
, fact was thereby presented for judi
cial determination.
1t must be conceded, for it follow
necessarily, that counsel for the peti
TONERS were justified in assuming tina
this issue of fact would be examine
into and disposed of in the usual man
ner, that is to say, in accordance wit
the established rules of practise an
: procedure prevailing in courts Of jus
tice.
I But instead of being permitted t
e thus proceed, the petitioners at thu
e point in the ease were called, swor
+ and examined by the Chief Justice a
to the source and nature of their il
= formation upon which their petition
| l.