Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-10-12
In COURT AT LAST
fhe Supreme Court Listens TO
Arguments
ON The MICHIGAN MINER BILL
A Formidshls Array Of Lawyers n Court
Attorney General Miller Makes the
Opening Argument

the arguments OF council IN the mai
ter Of the appeal from the supreme
court Of the state of Michigan. invois-
ing the consututlonaliiy Of the lxw
passed by the legislature OF that state
providing for the election of presiden-
tsl electors by districts. The mohon
10 advance was made by IA. NJ. Dufheld,
counsel for The appellants, and at once
granted by the court, the arguments 20
be heard as coon az motions, etc. were
| disposed OF. The prompt action Of the
court was doubtless due 10 desire 70
have the case heard by a fun bench
and dispose Of Il before election day.
BY taking up the case today, alec Chef
| Justice Fuller and Justice Blatohford,
who VIII not take part III the Chicago
lake front cases, which are II in po-
sltion for oral arguments. would be en-.
| sbicd TO visit New York and witness
the Columbian celebration. The title
of the Michigan case is, William Nc
| Pherson. Jr., 80 a.. We. Robert BlackeT,
secretary OF state, etc" PlslnUits at
torneys were ii. NJ. Duffield and L. A.
| Baker; for the defense were Attorney
General Ellls and otto kirchner. W.
II. Miller, attorney general OF the
| United States. also appeared snd made
brief argument against tie validity
OF the state law.
The Arguments and Premises
| In support Of the appeal three
reasons were argued one beng that the
whole state must name the electors;
that portion OF the.vuters could not
name one, and another portion,
/ another. within the meaning of the
| constitution. The second reason was
based upon the allegation that by the
/ operation Of the law, tue rights and
1 privileges of the voters OF Michigan
were abridged, N that heretofore they
bad the privilege and right Of voting
1 for al the electors of the state. nov
they could vote for bat two, which =
| forbidden by the fourteenth amen0-
nent. The third reason was based on
| the variations OF the act Of February
3, 1887; Frst-Ibe meeting OF the
| electors Is fixed for the fret Wednes.
day IN December. instead OF the second
| Monday IN January. Sccond-Makes
| il the duty Of the secretary Of state %
prepare lists OF electors ald alternate
! electors and 10 deliver 70 one Of
4 the tHCtOIt- NO AfCNskltn
| made in the state act for sending ANY
| certificate 10 the secretary OF state
! of the United States or other United
States official aud no provision for
| making any statement OF the number
of votes gwen for the persons voted
for presidential electors. For the de-
fense IL was maintained that tbs law
WAS wholly constitutional and rightsnd
| coming within that clause which gives
the legislature the power 10 determine
how the choice Of electors shall he
made, as being IN accord with the
| practice Of other states IA early years
of the republic.
| Attorney General Miller speaks
| The argument Of Attorney General
Miller IN the case was uueI pected. he
did not appear IN his officisl cspacity,
however, but as an ordinary attorney
at the request OF Nr. Dpfield. But IN
view Of the presidents suggestions IN
| bis message TO congress last winter. re-
ferring TO the dearsbiiity OF uniform
| practice IN the matter of choosing
| presidential electors and OF tie
relations between the president and he
attorney general. Mr.. Aller's remarks
possess unusuai signhcsoce. In the
| course of Mr.. klrchuer's argument, lie
| insisted that the case should have 10
standing IN court for the reRson that 4
was the result OF & conspiracy 10y the
| republican party 20 drsg the supreme
| court OF the United States INTO politics
Mr.. Miller paid some attention ie tie
assertion: IN hls femsrks ne sad Il
shall occupy but s few minutes. sc
have bat recently come INTO the case.
As a preliminary ] would suggest tBst
| there nav never be a better tme ~ de-
| eide this question than now. For many
years the laws have been IN entire UNI
| formity until this set OF the state OF
Michigan wss passed, and new Al toe
very threshold, before any action bss
been finally taken, or the election oi
/ president ls challenged. now, Il ever.
II should Toe once for al settled ard
determined what - the rule OF action
IN this matter.
lie Dsn1ts Psrtiss1shfp.
want 10 say one thing further pre-
hminary. differing from the gentleman
Who las addressed Won. that J bold it
30 be one Of the most hopeful slgns Of
the times that the courts ere srrousing
or hsing arToused - the fact II ihe
/ nights Of the people are % he preserved
they must be preserved ~ AZ ohserrs-
] hlffH NftW tMtttHf.tHf-ttt VI AAff - y rtIA
/ that they are preparing 20 take sno
are taking rs tie various politFcsi
bosses who, sssun sg that tie ques-
tons are purely political, are commit
/ ting grand larceny without reference
g. the rFhts 81 the people of the
I United States, and iu SAYING thls ] an
4 y q saving u a. a partisan. ] am pef-
/ fectlv vel swsre fnat The people have
heen fohbed ~ un n.i spp0rt4onmeut
by tbe party ~ which ] belong a. - Il
ss iy TIE pa-iy 70 which J sn op-
posed snd Il = high TINE thst the
courts should once for al ssy a. these
vorthies. IL 70 lusi as Hruch larceny 90
stssl q political rigtt a. II 70 20 stssl
private property Hence, ! ssy that
4 TINS case - here ~ such vsy that
the court may properly take bold ~ u,
itis not only the duty, but u seems 70
be The highest opportunity fg the
court 70 serve the county snd help %
preserve ia institutions.
Constfrutfousl protisions-
Vow. II the court please. there are
t~o Or three prossiurs ~ tie coustA
tuition. ard two o. three suggeetiOns
b erovgng out Of tbess proviUons, -
which 7 vish - csl attention. and !
shsii do Il very briefly Dof elshorsting
. 4 1hern hncanes ] have pDt the tifne sn1
4 bacsnsa J ha~e not made such prepsrf~