State ex rel. Chapman v. Miller

• Decision Date: 11 December 1894
• Citation: 52 Ohio St. 166,39 N.E. 24
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CHAPMAN v. MILLER et al.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

39 N.E. 24

52 Ohio St. 166

STATE ex rel. CHAPMAN v. MILLER et al.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

December 11, 1894

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Application for a writ of mandamus by Richard H. Chapman, relator against the board of deputy state supervisors of Mercer county and the members. The relator filed a general demurrer to defendants' answer. Sustained, and a peremptory writ of mandamus awarded.

This was an action brought by Richard H. Chapman, relator, a citizen and taxpayer of Mercer county, against the board of deputy state supervisors of Mercer county, and C. G. O Miller, John G. Beekman, S. A. Bowman, and Adolph Gilberg, the persons constituting said board, and H. H. Guy, clerk of the board, to compel said board, and the members thereof, and the clerk, to obey the order of the secretary of state, as state supervisor of elections, as to the printing of ballots in and for Mercer county for the November election, 1894.

The order which the defendants refused to obey is as follows ‘ On October 2, 1894, there was filed with the board of deputy state supervisors of elections of Mercer county a certificate of nomination certified by Thornton Spriggs, chairman, and Stephen R. Wilson, secretary, of the central committee of the People's party of Mercer county. This certificate of nomination certified certain candidates for various offices in said county. Later, to wit, on the 6th day of October, there was filed with the board of deputy state supervisors of election a certificate of nomination signed by J. L. Hook, chairman, and H. T. Hughes, secretary, as officers of a convention held at Rockford, in said county of Mercer, purporting to be a convention of the People's party of the said county, and certifying nomination of candidates for various offices of said county. On the 15th day of October, 1894, there was also filed with the said board of elections a certificate of nomination by petition, signed by more than 300 of the electors of said county, and properly certified, nominating candidates for the various offices to be filled by the electors at the coming November election in said county. Objections were filed with the board of deputy state supervisors of elections to placing the candidates named by the alleged People's party convention, filed October 2d, and to the Independent Democratic papers. On the question of placing the names of the said candidates on the ballot sheet, or rejecting them, the board was a tie, and so the matter comes to the secretary of state, as state supervisor of elections, for final decision. Whether the convention held at Celina September 29th properly represented the People's party, and whether it was regarded as representing said People's party at the time the delegates assembled, depends upon the regularity of the call. The testimony shows that in 1893 the People's party of Mercer county, among other things done, named a county central committee, consisting of the following named persons: John P. Chivington, William Nottingham, Thornton Spriggs, W. W. Harper, F. S. Collins, Martin Rutledge, Nelson Armantrout, Ezra Snider, L. E. Fox, D. Barger, S. R. Wilson, and Fred. Stedke. The above-named central committee of the People's party of Mercer county, it is admitted, was the contral or controlling committee of such party, and authorized, among other things, to call the convention for the purpose of nominating candidates for the various offices. From the testimony submitted to me, and especially by the affidavit of Frederick Stedke, corroborated by S. R. Wilson, two of the members of said committee, it appears that John C. Chivington, Thornton Spriggs, S. R. Wilson, W. Harper, Fred. Stedke, H. B. Bennett, proxy, and Ezra Snider, a majority of the central committee of said People's party, met on the 15th day of September, and by a majority vote of the members present issued a call for a convention to be held at Celina on September 29th; that the said convention, having assembled on the date named in the call, appointed a committee for the purpose, and authorized them to nominate a ticket for the several county officers to be voted for, and to certify the same to the board of deputy state supervisors; that said committee did nominate, as authorized by said convention, and certified to the deputy state supervisors, candidates for the several offices to be voted for as follows, to wit: For sheriff, Andrew L. Alexander; for treasurer, Henry V. Hinton; for recorder, Richard H. Chapman; for county commissioner, Stephen R. Wilson; for surveyor, Clyde V. Smith; and for infirmary director, John H. Murlin. The facts as alleged in the affidavit above referred to were denied by the attorney representing the electors who participated in the Rockford convention, but no testimony was produced in substantiation of the claim. All the evidence that has been presented shows that the Celina convention was regularly called by the duly-constituted committee representing the People's party of said county, and that it was in fact as well as in name the People's party convention; and it is not denied that the persons participating in said mass convention were all recognized adherents of the People's party of said county, and that by a vote of seventy-nine to forty-four the said convention directed the said county central committee to make the nominations, and certify the same to the deputy state supervisor. It is alleged, and affidavits furnished substantiating the allegations, that some of the persons nominated were not members or adherents of the People's party, but as a matter of fact were adherents of other political parties. Whether they are or are not members of the People's party is immaterial, as the law distinctly recognizes the right of one party to indorse the candidates of another party by nominating them as their own candidates, or authorizing it to be done by a committee having authority to make original nominations. See section 6a of the ballot law. The convention held at Rockford October 6th was not called by a majority of the central committee of the People's party of the county, but by a minority of the committee, and the convention was participated in only by a small number of bolting delegates who also participated in the Celina convention, and consequently it was not a convention representing the People's party as contemplated in the statutes, and therefore had no authority to make nomination in any other manner than by petition. Whether the Celina convention was called a People's party convention or a Populist convention is not material, so long as the paper certifying the nominations certified them as People's party candidates. The certificate of nomination certifies ‘ that at a convention of electors representing the People's party of the county of Mercer, held at Celina, Mercer county, Ohio, on the 29th day of September, 1894,’ etc. As to the certificate of nomination of candidates for county offices by petition as such nominations are specifically authorized by the provisions of section 7 of the ballot law, I hold such nominations to be valid, and direct that they should be printed on the ballot, under the proper designation certified. It is therefore ordered that the names of the candidates nominated...