The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1921-12-15

20 rejected because some of them were
not signed by the petitioners In person
nor upon the ground that all OF the
names contained on particular paper
: - he rec ted because the petitioner
who made the arndaylt 10 that particu-
lar paper Withdrew MS name from the
petition after the sHmo vas filed. The
action Of IT," clerk in rejecting the
ma ,il"s upon tie 'r.t'i.Nn under such CIR
cunl4ianccg results from m.sappr"h"l-
SION o.: the Law, an! IS without any sun
stantiuI foundation, and justI!i"S resort
to thu wri; o: maniImus 10 rumpe! MN
t. irop"rlE perform his duty.
May Withdraw Names.
"One signing recall petition under
the provisions Of section ~ OF the
Wheeling charter above referred 70 may
Withdraw i.& r.i,Ir. ,Aerctron at any
lin" hrfor, sur. p",it!on Is acted upon
bat such w!ihdrn"%l VIII not Lave the
rffcc; Of MULTIPLYING III" paper upon
which his name Is signed even though
ho is The petitioner who makes the al
tidavIt thereto.
This court may not pass upon tho
Sulliriency of grounds stated IN
Jr.tlt!rn Mr'd Tor the purpose OF recall
ing Objects under the provisions OF the
Wheeling rhnr;'r above referred TO-.
judge Miller G.eseutrd 70 the opinion
which W., written by Judge Harold A.
R!r2. president II the court.
In discussing he ra"e N as ruling
Judge Ritz said there Is nothing IN the
contention G.: TN" city clerk that mas
much as The separate sheets or paper
constituting the petition were oVnaed
together after the signatures were
placed thereon and the affidavit mace
under these circumstances, Il can not he
considered as an affidavit covering BIZ
OF the sheets tnus included.
"Scrtiou =" does not require an az
ridulIt /" "ncn separate paper rs pl"Tid-
81 Ivy section H." he said. cone man
might max" the affidavit 10 the whole
petition composed OF ali of the paper
SO far rs section % is concerned ana
il would nc entirely sufficient. or
course, lie would have 10 have pretty
fun knowledge of the Voting popula-
Ijnu Of tho city in order 10 be posscsSra
If the information necessary 10 make
such an affidavit, but there Is no rea-
son why. :t;-r the signatures were pro-
cured upon separate papers. any voter
should rot make the affidavit required
10y section 90, applying it TO all OF the
papers to which HIS knowledge extended.
Sufficient Signatures
All that this affidavit IS required to
show is that the signers Of tho petition
were, at the time OF signing tho same
legal voters Of the city. Il seems 10 US
that this conclusion OF tho clerk by
which he refused 10 give effect 10 thoNs-
ands Of names appearing on these pct'-
TONS WAS without any substantial basis.
The names rejected on this ground
uloua taken together with those admit
ted by the respondent to be proper are
sufficient t. require the calling or inc
election.
Another reason given by the re-
spondcnt for refusing TO consider some
OF tic papers was that some OF the
names thereon were not signed by the
parties IN yerson. lie contends thar
soma OF the parties whose namcs appear
upon the uaners stated that they did noI
sign the same, and he also states that
in these cases those VINO procured the
SIGNATURES stated that such names were
signed by the wife or husband or some
other member oC the family OF the pc
titioncr, and Whenever he found one OF
these pairrS upon which any names ap-
pcarcd that were not signed bS tho Pc
t:tloHcr in person he rejected the whoIe
raper and refused IT, consider any Of
The names contained thereon. 1t may DC
doubted ,whcth upon the inquiry when
the clerk was called upon TO make ne
could inquire intO the Scnuineness OF
the siEmatures. Under tho statute the
affidavit appended TO the petitions ma de
them pr;na fac!e evidence OF what they
contained, and wo DO not think tho clerk
would have n right to institute nm ex
par,e inquiry as to the EenuineHess OF
any OF tho signatures. IT may lie that
II any OF them were challenged nm In
uu!kv could be conducted before him up
on notice 10 the proponents OF tho recall
election to determine the questions, bu'
upon this We express no opinion at thif
time !uasmuch s the question does moi
now arise We do say. however, that hlf
refusal TO consider any Of the names or
raper simply because one or more o.
Them were not the genuine signature o.
the petitioners was not JWSt!tled' Ger
taInlv the most that he would DO author
: tied to do In such case would be u
refuse 10 consider those names shown
! not TO be genuine.
Addresses Are Sufioient.
Another ground Tor refusal 20 con
| slider n number OF the names IS that I'M
J signers failed 10 give their addresses
lby street and number, In some cases
| giving their addresses as n certain note
| In the city or a certain apartment II
,he rIIv. The action Of the petitioners
! IN .gIving their addresses As they az
! certainly came within the spirit or tn
| net The purpose in requiring the Ic'4
I ,fnuc-s to give their addresses by stree
md humber WAS IN order that any on'
, interested might set upon foot an III