22 N.E.2d 913 | Ohio | 1939
Counsel supporting the demurrer predicate their position upon the sole proposition that the absence of the names of a committee of five in the initiative petition makes it fatally defective in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 27 heretofore set forth.
In Dillon v. City of Cleveland,
In the present proceeding there are no statutes which control and the provisions of Section 27 do not conflict with the Constitution, are not unreasonable, and therefore are valid and must govern. It might be observed that the same requirement for a committee in former Section 5000 et seq., now Section 4785-91, General Code, relating to nomination of candidates for offices, was held mandatory in State, ex rel. Bloker, v. Gabelet al., Deputy State Supervisors of Elections,
Counsel for the relators in their brief contend that Section 27 is neither mandatory nor directory, and maintain, first, that the provision of Section 166 of the charter, requiring a petition to be signed by only 10 per centum of the electorsvoting at the last general election, contravenes Section
As to these contentions it is sufficient to say that in *18 the present controversy the initiative petition was not rejected by council because of an insufficient number of signatures or because such petition was not filed with the election authorities as required by Section 166 of the charter, and therefore those questions are not before this court.
The demurrer to the petition is sustained and, relators not desiring to plead further, a writ of mandamus is denied.
Writ denied.
WEYGANDT, C.J., DAY, ZIMMERMAN, WILLIAMS, MYERS, MATTHIAS and HART, JJ., concur.