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

say with regard to their claim than to
turn them away unheard.
It has been held that in a statutory
contest. where the contestant alleges
error, mistake, fraud, misconduct, or
corruption in counting the ballots or
declaring the result of an election 4
recount Of the ballots should be order
ed as a matter of course upon the re-
! quest Of the complaining party, because
/ the ballots themselves, if properly pre-
served, are the highest and best evi-
/ dence Of the expression of the VIII of
! the voters. According to the weight
of authority. however, q resort 10 the
ballots themselves cannot be had until
/ the contestant produces evidence max
| ing prima facie case which indicates
at least a probability that a recount
would decide the election in his favor.
| Us eye. 429.l Counsel informed the
/ court that they were ready To put on
| their evidence with the view of show
/ ing at least prima faeie case. Under
i all the authorities they were clearly
| entitled to do this. The court should
| have granted this request. The fact
| that the court had taken the testimony
| of the petitioners, if it can be called
! testimony, was no reason why it should
refuse to hear proper testimony. The
point being that the examination of
petitioners by the court was wholly I'M
authorized by law.
In Brown V Iaukea, is Haw. 131, it
seems that the court proceeded to in
spect the ballots upon nothing more
than the mere allegations in the petit
ton and without requiring any evidence
at ALL Subsequently the contestant
took the stand and testified that he had
some information of irregularities in
two precincts, but as to the remaining
allegations in his petition they were "a
matter of guesswork. - Upon this
showing, however, the ballots of all the
precincts were opened and examined
1t is proper that the court should
guard against mere fishing excursion,
but this can be done with safety and
| propriety, by requiring, or by permit
| ting, as was requested in this case. the
| contestants to adduce some evidence
sufficient to show prima facie grounds
| for inspecting the ballots. And under
| the precedent of Brown V. Iaukea a
slight showing only is required for this
purpose.
| With regard to the construction Of
| statutes providing for the contesting of
| elections, the courts look upon such
statutory provisions with favor. a
strict compliance with the letter of the
statute is unnecessary so long as the
| spirit of the enactment is complied
with.
McCrary on Elections (Section 431)
says:
I" It may be stated as a general rule.
recognized by all the courts of this
country, that statutes providing for
contesting elections are to be literally
construed. to the end that the viii of
the people in the choice of public of
ficers may not be defeated by any
merely formal or technical objec
tious.''
See also Is eye, 4l2
| In Whitney v Blackman, II Org,
564, the court said:
st is the duty of courts to dis
regard mere technical rules or defects,
and to literally construe the law that
the rights of the people may be pre-
served, and that no protection may be
afforded to fraud. =
In Curry V. Baker, 81 Ind, 155, the
| court said:
/ cit is never the duty of courts to
place SO rigid construction upon the
language of any act, where There S
room for Interpretation, as to def 71t
the purposes of the Legislature. Still
/ less are we disposed to adopt such a
view where the object of the law is to
secure to the electors the purity OF the
ballot box, by subjeeting to the scru-
tiny of the courts the conduct Of the
officers in charge of the election.
: In Minor V. Kidder, 10 Cal, 236, the
; court said:
sit is the wholesome purpose OF the
statute to invite inquiry into the CON
duet of popular elections. Its aim IS
to secure that fair expression OF the
popular will in the selection of public
officers. without which we can scarcely
hope to maintain the integrity Of the
political system under which we live.
: With this view it has provided the
means of eontesting the claims of per-
sons asserting themselves to have been
chosen to office by the people.
; When such statement is presented
by an elector of the tribunal whose
, duty it is to investigate its merits, it
, should not be received in a spirit of
captiousness, nor put aside upon mere
technical objections designed to defeat
J the very search after truth which the
! statute intended to invite. The inves-
. tigation proposed is one in which the
, public at large are deeply concerned. y
, In the opinion of the justices to
the Governor and Council of the Com
5 monwealth of Massachusetts Q36
Mass, $3.50, respecting a statute which
! provided that an election might be
contested by ten voters upon their
written statement that they had rea
: son to believe that the returns of the
! officers were erroneous, the court said:
"The provisions of the thirty-sixth
t section are clear and explicit, and seem
: to us to admit of but one construc
/ ton. They authorize and require the
r boards of aldermen of cities to recount
z the ballots east in any ward, upon tht
z fling of the proper statement IN writ
: ing, by ten or more qualified voters OF
: the ward. that they have reason to be
5 lieve that the returns of the ward Off
E GERS are erroneous The statute
= contemplates that the statement is t.
be made by plain people, and technica
5 and narrow rules of construction ough