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

fueneed by the feeling that a recount
is almost a matter of course, to ascer-
tain the correct result of the vote, and
that it ought in common fairness to
be made.
"The petition viii have to be dis
missed. +"
Wilder, j.
az haven't anything TO add except
this, that ] agree with the conclusion
that the petition viii have TO be dis
missed and viii put my views in writ
ing and file them later
Judge De Bolt
az find that am obliged to dissent
1t seems to me that the statute clearly
does not contemplate, RS set forth in
the reasoning announced by the Chief
Justice, that thirty persons -eognizant
of the one fact are necessary to sign
the petition. As I view it, duly quail
ifed voter might stand by and observe
IL vain some act by which the rights
Of the citizens would be grossly violat-
ted and which would clearly nullify an
election but still be helpless. If the
ret sons given for the opinion Of the
court as announced are sound, no matter
what rights of the citizen might be
thus violated, as contemplated by the
election laws, he could not act because
twenty nine others could not be had
10 join with him upon information and
belief. Clearly, the legislature never
contemplated that such a thing should
exist
Hartwell, C. J.
81 win add this suggestion, that
there might be such grave violations
of law, known only to one voter pres
ent, which would justify him or any
other voter receiving the information
from him, in bringing a writ of quo
warranto. The courts are not agreed
whether the statutory remedies are ex-
elusive or not
Upon the evening of December "A an
attorney for the petitioners orally re-
quested the court to hear argument
upon the question whether the statute
required that in order that thirty quail
lhed voters sustain contest they
must have knowledge or direct infor-
nation of any one irregularity which,
If shown by the evidence, would in
validate the election. The request was
granted and counsel. although unnec.
essarily, filed motion for rehearipp
in which they submit point not here.
tofore presented. namely, that the
court had no authority to examine the
petitioners As to their knowledge or
information of the matters charged in
their petition. Strictly the motion
could be struck from the files, but this
was not done and counsel were heard
on the new matter as well on Deem
Der %. December % the following
opinion was fled by the court:
According to the practise in for
mer election contests the defeated can
didate could not obtain denomination
OF ballots unless upon a showing, which
was made in such case, that he had
knowledge or direct information of
some fraud accident or mistake which
would invalidate or change the result
of the election. It must be a real and
not an assumed or hypothetical fraud,
accident or mistake to make an issue
on which a controversy between can
didates can arise. There is no contest
or issue of fact or law presented by
Z a statement that a decision Of inspec-
tors ought to be reversed. corrected or
changed because petitioners believe,
decision was incorrect. The petition
ers insist that it is unnecessary that
the petition be verified at all and that
the court, after answer filed, had no
jurisdiction, before hearing evidence,
to require the petitioners to prove any
of their allegations. This has not been
required further than to ascertain from
the petitioners whether. they all had
L. LII e.
corning their charges, the object be,
ing to avoid reexamining ballots upon
mere surmise of petitioners or others
that there were irregularities. One
of the attorneys of the petitioners is
consistent in claiming that the law
does not require of any petitioner any
knowledge or direct information as to
any irregularities charged In this view
any qualified voter, if he can get TWEEN.
ty-nine others to join him in peti
ton setting forth that any one be
lleves that there has been error Of
the inspectors, can require, the ballet:
examined and passed upon as well as
counted.
"The statute (Section 56) reqt res
that All questions as to the validity
of any ballot east at any election held
under this act shall be decided imme
diately and the opinion of the major
ity of the board of inspectors of cleo
ton at each polling precinct shall be
final and binding, subject to revision
by the Supreme Court of the Territory
as hereinafter provided and further
(Section sly that 'Any candidate di
rectly Interested Gt will be observed
that candidate indirectly interested
has not this rightly or any thirty duly
qualified voters of any election dis
trict may file petition in the Su
preme Court setting forth any cause o.
causes why the decision of any board
of inspectors should be reversed, cor
rected or changed, referring, o.
course, to decisions as to the VALIDITY
of any ballots.
"The two ways of looking at tn,
subject, then, are (1) that any thirt,
voters may dispute the decision of tn,
inspectors in their own district, mean
ing, as held, the entire Island of Oahu
whether any of them know or hav,
heard of any fatal Irregularities O.
not; (2) that all must have such knowl
edge or information. In the forme
view it was suggested by the petition
ers at their first argument that thei
paSa is like that of n craditoroS HI