Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-10-19
The Michigan Case.

As we stated yesterday the Michigan re-
distnctlug case was decided on Monday as
all true friends Of free government in this
country desired it to be decided, and as we
could not hut hope and look for it to be
decided. We have kept our readers fully
posted on the case. and have quoted several
times the constitutional provision under
which the last Michigan Legislature acted
in passing the bill TO district that State for
the election of electors OF President and
Vice-President of the United States.
/ Nevertheless. we will quote 1t once more.
II is ss follows:
Zach State shall appoint in such manner as
the Legislature thereof may direct a number Of
electors equal to the whole number Of Senators
and Representatives TO which tho State may be
entitled in the Congress"
The contention of the Republicans (for
il is a partisan case just as the New York
reapportionment case 10 a partisan case
was that the fourteenth article of amend
ments to the Federal Constitution had
superseded the above-quoted paragraph,
and that every voter in every State now
had the right to vote for oil the electors of
argued they. the act of the Legislature of
Michigan providing that one elector
should be chosen in each COMPRESSION al
district and two by the voters of the State
at large was unconstitutional and null and
void. The Supreme Court of the United
States not only brushes aside this couten-
tion as untenable, but has the candor TO
add in effect that their decision was rem
dered before they had prepared an opinion
to send out with it because the Presi-
Dental election was so near at hand.
Note that reapportionment and redis-
tricting are. as We have heretofore
shown. two entirely different things.
Both in New York and Michigan the Demo-
Gratis contend for the constitutionalitv of
the changes made by the last Legislatures
Of these States. But in Michigan the Re
.pubhcans denied the power of the Legis-
lsture 10 redistrict the State for the cleo
ton of presidential electors, whereas
the Republicans Of New York conceded
that the Legislature had the power to re-
apportion representation IN the General
Assembly. but had exercised that power in
an unconstitutional manner. Up TO this
time the Democrats have the highest court
Of New York on their side in the New York
case and the highest court IN the United
States on their side in the Michigan case.
The Supreme Court of the United States
says in its brief preliminary opinion that
it is not authorized 70 revise the con-
illusions Of the Supreme Court of Michi-
gan based upon matters of local law. We
quote its words;
1--WE ara Of opinion that as 10 objections 10 Ac,
No so OF the public laws OF Michigan OF 1891,
based upon matters Of local law, having been
ruled upon by tho Supreme Court Of Michigan
adversely TO plaintiffs In error, whose conc.u-
sions ia that regard We are not authorized to re-
wise, a decision Of the Federal question involved
was necessary
That sentence states the practice Of the
Supreme Court IN such cases. The court
adds:
"The validity Of the law as repugnant TO the
Constitution and laws OF the United States
having been drawn in question and decided, and
the decision being IN favor OF its validity, this
court has jurisdiction" &o. &C.
The Supreme Court Of the United States
refers to the construction I'm practice" Of
the first section Of Article III. of the Fede-
raj Constttution-the section first above
quoted. ies. the practice Of the fathers
settled the question that each elector of
President and yice-Prcsident has right
TO vote for his own favorite candidates.
The Republicans could not deny the truth
OF this contention. and so they claimed
that the fourteenth amendment had over
hidden Section I OF Article II. But the
supreme Court Of the United States IL
clear" and unanimous" in the opinion
that the fourteenth amendment has not
changed the law of the land a. il was made
and understood and construed in practice
by the fathers OF the republic.
We rejoice that this decision has been
rendered. II adds another support to the
fabric Of States rights. II allows us TO
stand with the fathers. What results may
now from this important and far-raaching
decision cannot 10 foseseen. Every State