Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1912-10-04
CAN'T RUN ON
TWO TICKETS
ALL CANDIDATES MUST DECLARE
PARTY AFFlLIATIoN, RULES
SECRETARY GRAVES.
PETITIONS ARE THROWN OUT
Papers Filled In Behalf of Progress
sive Candidates In Franklin Coun-
ty Are Declared Faulty by
Chief Election officer.

Columbus, O.-Declaring he was
acting in judicial, not an admins
trative capacity, Secretary of State
Charles H. Graves, chief election Off
Ger of Ohio, threw out all petitions for
the nomination of the Progressive
ticket of Republican and Democratic
candidates in Franklin county, holding
no man who was a candidate on one
party ticket and espoused it's princi-
piles, could be candidate on another
party ticket with conflicting princi-
pies.
The ruling was a victory for the
Taft Republicans and a defeat for
the Moose followers. The ruling had
been expected, save that it was not
known that Secretary Graves was to
construe his acts as judicial. II he
is correct in his Interpretation of the
statutes and is judicial officer in
the ruling, it will follow, it is asserted,
that his action is final.
Dissenters from the law as con-
.strued by Secretary Graves said the
case will be taken to the courts and
an effort made to procure a judicial
review of the ruling
The ruling was based almost en-
tirely on the provision in the election
laws that each nomination paper shall
set forth the political party or princi-
Piles advocated by the candidate.
Graves held that where man had
been candidate at party primary
and had filed his statement saying he
belonged to that party and would ac-
cept the nomination If he won it, it
was impossible for another individual
to file nominations Tor that candidate
to have his name placed on the ticket
of another party and declare the can
didate stood for the principles of the
second party.
Graves declares it would be fraud on
the electorate to permit any candidate
to represent that he stands for cer-
tain principles when in fact he does
not stand for those principles, and
that such fraud ought not to be per-
mitted. Taking this position he ruled
there was but one question before him
the truth or falsity of the petition
statements. In determining that fact
he ruled the voluntary statement and
declaration of the candidates who par
ticipated in the state primary, in
which they declared their party affilia-
tion, was superior to the statement of
the third party signed to the petitions
filed later to put the names on the
second ballot.
Against the statement of the indi
Grou
the bare statement of third party
who had circulated the petition, and
who, perhaps, lacked definite informa-
tion. He added the petitions did not
correctly state the party or political
principle of the candidates and for
that reason the petitions were incom-
plete and would not be received.
Graves states positively in the rul-
ing that he had repeatedly held that
in the absence of any law specifically
to the contrary the name of candi-
date might appear on the ballot on
two tickets provided the candidate
had complied with the law in secur-
ing such pominations. There was
nothing in his ruling to make plain
what he terms the compliance with
the law in securing the second inser-
tion of the name. The petitioners had
followed custom, they claim, and had
carried out the law as they read it
and understood it in using the petition
form of getting the candidates name
on the ticket the second time. Graves
holds their version of the law faulty.