Ka Leo o ka Lahui, Volume II, Number 396, 24 Pepeluali 1892 — THE THIRD DISTRICT. [ARTICLE]

THE THIRD DISTRICT.

Ka L*o:— The coDstit.aUonal probibition regarding candidates for repre«entatives reads thus: 44 * * * and noexecutive or judicUl offioer, or any ooDtractdr« or employee of the f(overnment, or any pereon in the receipt of salar? or eiDOiameiit, from the fovernment» Bha.ll be eligible to e>ection to the Legißl»tare of the Hawaiian Kingdom, or to hold the po»tion of elective member of tfa* wb&* : *&i it ia sooght by the govemment and miaeionary organs to invoke thi« ek«Wi and iti «uiti9otioß by the SQpr»m« C<^rt ) ftgaii»t the candidatare aad eleeklon of C. W. Ashford a« repreBenUtive to the legie- - latore ihe th4id dietriet of Honolulu. Tbe eouelneione arrived at, arid rettons a«Bigiied therefor, by Mr. Ja*t!ce M(tCally, who wnHe th* opinion of the Coart are expreee*d (eo far as KoUriet are concemed) in theee wordē: 4 I have to ijr that NoUnee public, receiving appointment by tlw King in Privv Coa»oi) on tbe Qomination of the Minieter of the Interior, being »abject», bein* reqaimt to Uke an oath of and holcling office during hia Maje«tvV (sve Section 1206, 1267 of the Code), * are offiQere t and wit hin tht prohibition of Article 2(> of ihe C,n•uimion.'' The karned Judge, w»thout citing a Mngle i»r<>eedent. thu« givee f<»<tr din*n<*t r#a#on*, eaneee or condition», whieh enn- % atitute Notariet * % «»t!icer»V »»r«d»-r Amele 20: vif (l) the *t»pointaem by t#e. fCing īn Pnvjr o>un--1 eil oo tbē noniniiiop < f tbe Miniev i

(2))iain( •<*s«*•; (3) being pequired to tak« *m oalb of office; and (4) hoiding offioe daring hia Majeety'B pieaaoie. The plain infer©nce is that the caase of the prohibition being cumaiatiT6, it requires the existence of aii these fourcoQditionsto e£fect the resait fo'und. tiut if not so, ihen whieh one or two or three are unnecmarj —and whieh three or two or one ie necessary—to retain the prohibitisn in force ? By Chapter XI, Law of 1887, page 17,8ection 1266 of Civil Code is amended and made to read as follows: "Bec. 1266. There ahail be appointed by the Hinister of Interior one or more suitable perBon» in eaeh of tbe judicial ci«wiite of the Kingdom to be No4arke jmWjic and to hoid office ae aiieh No|aries cmtii removed by aneh Minietei , s M-r--thus tAkingfrom t|ie Kingthe powtr of both appointing and removiog Xotaries. i. e M sweeping awayoonditions (1) and (4) The argument of the court lat«r or in opinion gives ae a reaeo6 for agente to take aoknowledgment to deede coming within the prohibition, the foliowing — they hold office at the pleasure of the RegiBtrar, and the Registrar holds office at the pieasure of tbe Kmg. This argument if correct cannot appiy to the eaee of NotarieB, heeanee the Minister who appoints has neTer held offiee u at the pleasure of thtf King M sinoe June $)th 1887. We thus see two of the four reaeons given by the court īn their opinion of Aagust 29th 1887, swept o*t of ezistenoe by the above aot, ngned by the King November 25th 1887.

| A third cenditi/sb—' being required to eake the oaUi of office"—eeeme scarce worth a seriouB commeat, in yiew of the applicatioa of that condition in other directions. For instance ( take Attorneys-at-iaw. Are they not appointees of the SurenoeCourt? Are their commiB- - not sigoed by the Chief tice? Dcee not the Chief Justfce | hold his commistion from the Kin#? | (Article 71, Con«titutioo). Are not appoin&eea required to taken an u oatb of office (Section 1065, Compiled Lawa). Are they &ot removabie by the appOiritiiig power ? (Bee opiriion of MeCaliy,! J., %u rt »gei|U to take aekiiowMgmen» to deeds, gupm). Yet has any partisan M law" era nk, to say nothing of a Suprepae Court ever had the hardihood to deelare that Attorney'B oome wiUiin tha prohibition of Artic!e 20, for "being required to Uke the oath of oflloe," or for any or all oth t of the iauMs above enumerated T But tbe inost elaiiia of 'all isthat becauee **being a citi« !sen" is n*eessary to being a XoJ tary, erso t being a Notary i« * a bs r to eMgibility, or doee or should in any manner contrfbute to the prohibition under d!scu«fion. \Vhy, "being a eillien" i« n t*emnry tli* j■gihility ( Aniele ConBtitutloli): and it i8 a most amuiitig inBtance of ; the horse-che«triut, eheBtnut h jtm , logie whieh ean twi#t it into a jiro* . hihUion in gsse of a y< pptofftintivx, hf -nu4e |t i» a condit:on prece«ien( h* a. Sotary. T>t ua o«>me baek to th*» Mtorney a(|ain. Is r.ot .■* ?»> t*' a y»,.i m>% of »'•»» th«* b.tr ? (&*ct:«»n !Q#s. 0... 'HuW 28 (f lht * i| r»> pm~ī: Ashf^fīl, 4 Haw R«jv 01«! rf »ry). By vitn» mon usiige; t«y cutt>»u to whiCh the i i

memoi? ef m*itrunoeth wKto the eefttm!7; by imiammUa du*a in jodieial deokions; by tbe ruliog aod practio« of courtB «verjrwb«re. Attoru«3T«-at-law are tk offieeTB of tho ooort." Who pretends thftt an Aitorney is ,t probibited" by Artiole from the eimple fact of hia being an Attorney — even with all jbbese ,4 di»|uaHfying H cqndnkmB surrQunding him and attaohod to him as oonditions pr«oad«iit to hia adaMoa tothe bar — ooaditk»M far outrunning th«» who are aaar--Bhalled by the off-hand opinion (not the judickd opinkm, not the law) of August 29th 1887, to prove that a Netsffy is witMn the profcibkion, bot an Attot«»y ia not,

It would be4e«i than &ir, how--BW, to omit reoalling tbe fact that the appbsntment of C. W.Ashford ss a Neiary waa uoder the law of Ke*ember 25th, whieh swept away the only pdnts on whieh the opinioa of Augnlt 29th wasj baeed, to wit, (1) and (4) abovei mentioned. It has been shown i that (2) and (3) are entirely disregard in this connexion, elsewhere, and the plain mferenoe is that they, standing alone, would never been in voked a? areason for tbe rule sustaining prohibition. Judges, while practidng lawyers, acquire the habit of following the wordiiig of Btatutes—even where a portion mar not be entlrely relevent —in pleadings and otner legal docnmefit; and the oonditftons eovered by (2) and (3) probably beoome embodied in the opinion reterred to in eeme auoh tray. This mueh is oertain — lkat the oāee before ua bristks with faots strongly refoting the theory of the ineligibUity of Notariee t nnder the law as it noV

exicto: On!y m»t of thea« &ets (or ehain of faete) hae been touched opoii bereia. A ooort of review never goea f*rther than to find a single iritiating iegal fact> •in order te reveree a deci«on. The decieion on whieh the inelucibiHty is howied by the Boodlers and eohoed by the Ptalm tingen ie not law, neither Uit authoritv. At any rate the naeone for it bave vanished by | Rubeeqnent legieiation; and among the commoneet elem«ntary maxime is one to the effect that when the retson of a r\ile faile, the rulē itseif eeaeee toexist. Lex Bcripta.