The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1909-01-07
JUDGE De BOLT
FILES A VERY
HOT Opinion
Continued from Page one.)


RIGHT is INHERENT AND NO
COURT CAN RIGHTFULLY TAKE
1T FROM HIM.
These are plain simple rules, bus
they are indispensable to the due and
orderly administration of justice. Ana.
accordingly as they and the principles
upon which they rest are observed, or
the contrary, determines the difference
between a government by law and a
government by men. THE FORMER
PROMOTES THE GOOD ORDER,
HAPPINESS AND PROSPERITY OF
A PEOPLE, WHILE THE LATTER
TENDS TO FOSTER TYRANNY, OPP
PRESTON AND INJUSTICE.
1t is inevitable, that whenever a
court departs from the we'll defined
channels of judicial procedure, or
passes beyond the realms of the law,
however worthy the purpose or motive
may be for so doing, 1T AT ONCE
ENTERS UPON THE BOUNDLESS
DOMAIN OF ARBITRARY POWER.
Hence, the preliminary examination OF
the petitioners by the court after an
issue of fact was joined and the sum-
mary dismissal of the petition, without
permitting the petitioners to offer any
evidence in support thereof, was, in
my opinion, in conflict with those vital
principles just alluded to, AND WAS
WHOLLY UNWARRANTED.
Counsel for petitioners informed the
court that their witnesses were in at
tendance and ready to be sworn and
to testify, but the court refused TO
hear them, or allow the petition to be
amended by adding other names there
to g Mont. 497) and thereupon sum-
marily dismissed the petition. TO MY
MIND THIS WAS RBPUGNANT TO
THE INHERENT PRINCIPLES OF
RIGHT AND JUSTICE.
If the facts as set forth in the petit
ton were true, then it follows that the
summary dismissal of the petition,
WAS A GRIEvOUS WRONG, NOT
ONLY TO THE DEFEATED CANDI-
DATE, BUT TO THE ENTIRE COM
MUNITY.
With regard to the holding of the
court that each petitioner was oblig-
ed to have knowledge or direct infor-
nation of the same irregularity, MIS-
take or fraud, as set forth in the pc
tition, and also that each be required
fn chnuy oath otY,a ,.xr
examination conducted by the court,
not by counsel under the supervision
of the court, that such knowledge and
information was correct, before an ex-
animation of the ballots could be had,
find it beyond my comprehension to
conceive upon what possible theory the
court was able to so expand and en-
large the plain and explicit language
of the statute in this regard.
AS l view the matter the court re-
quired something of the petitioners
which the statute clearly does not re-
quire of them. THE COURT AT
TEMPTED TO IMPORT INTO THE
STATUTE PROVISIONS WHICH IT
DOES NOT CONTAIN.
All that the statute requires is that
the petition shall set forth a cause
or causes why the decision of any
Board of Inspectors should be reversed
corrected or changed" 1t will thus be
observed that the statute does not
require that the petitioners shall have
either knowledge or information OF
the grounds of the contest, much less
to be obliged to submit themselves tc
preliminary examination such as was
required of them in this case.
The statute does not even require
| that the petition shall be verified by
the oath of petitioners And all thai
is required by way of showing that the
contest is made bona fide is that the
petition be fled by thirty qualified
voters and at the same time deposit
| $50 90 as costs of court. The legisla
ture deemed this sufficient and the
| court can require no more. One quail
! flied voter could file the petition al
well as any number of voters could
but evidently the legislature, in con
sidering the interest the public has IL
an election contest, concluded thai
more than one was necessary or pro
per as guarantee of good faith
Hence, the reason for requiring tina
the petition be filed by thirty duly
qualified voters. And this being com
piled with the legislature has in effec
said that it was the plain duty of tht
court to proceed with the hearing a.
in any other cause. A petition thu
filed and presented to the court givei
the contestants a perfect right to of
fer their evidence, and 1T ACCORD
INGLY BECOMES THE DUTY OF
THE COURT TO RECEIVE AND TC
DULY CONSIDER SUCH EVIDENCE
All that the court can properly re
quire in addition to the plain terms o
the statute, is that the petitioners ad
duce enough evidence to warrant al