The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1910-12-17
Republicans IN
BAD ONCE MORE
Lose Last Petition in Supreme
Court and Announce a
DisContinuance.

There is no longer an election con,
test before the supreme court of the
Territory. The petition of Andrew
Bright and others praying that an order
issue setting aside the election of
Joseph J. Fern and declaring Lane
mayor was dismissed yesterday. At the
same time the attorneys who have been
conducting the fight for the Repub-
licans announced in open court that
there would be no continuation of it on
their part
thirty men who signed the petition for
the removal of Fern upset the suit and
it was on this ground that the decision
of the court yesterday dismissed it.
The opinion was written by Justice
Perry, concurred in by Circuit Judge
Whitney, who was sitting in place of
the absent chief justice, but it was
dissented from in part by Justice De
Bolt. The latter maintained in a
minority opinion that the withdrawal of
several men from the necessary thirty
after the petition had been filed did
not invalidate the case.
Majority Point.
eff one of the thirty withdraws, +"
says Justice Perry, in his opinion "and
still leaves vitality in the proceeding,
twenty-nine may withdraw with the
same result. We are unable to conclude
that the Legislature contemplated the
continuance by one voter, or by ten
or by any number less than thirty,
of a contest, even though properly in
stituted by the required number. -
Justice De Bolt dissents on this
point, saying in his opinion:
Minority Opinion.
eff the opinion of the majority (of
this court) IS sound, then also, by the
death. insanity, conviction of felony
or removal from the election district
of any one of thirty petitioners after
filing the petition would operate as a
dismissal of the petition and GUST the
court of its jurisdiction. I can not
believe that the legislature intended,
or that the statute contemplated any
such condition of affairs. or that the
rights Of the honest voter should be
precariously placed in the keeping and
held at the pleasure or mere whim of
a possible corrupt, ignorant or weak
man, simply because he happens to be
one of the thirty petitioners.
"Whatever may be said as to an
election contest being an adversary pro-
eeeding,' continues the opinion, cit
must be conceded as it seems to me,
that there is marked distinction be-
tween contest instituted by a de-
feated candidate and one begun by thir-
tv voters. The candidate, in addition
to his interest as a citizen and a voter.
also has a deep personal and pecuniary
interest in the matter. The thirty vOt
ers as petitioners have no interest save
those in common with other citizens
and voters. This distinction. to my
mind, tends to show that such petition
ers owe a duty to the public and to
their fellow petitioners which they can
not throw off at will. -
The majority of the court also held
that after several of the petitioners
had withdrawn from the case it was not
permissible to amend the complaint by
the introduction of several more petit
TONERS to fill their place as the attor-
neys for the petitioners had moved to
do. This point was concurred in by De
POlr