The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1892-06-22
NULLIFIERS BEATEN.
The Michigan Electoral Law Upheld
by the Supreme Court.

LANSING. Mich, June 1.-THE supreme
court today handed down a decision sus-
tanning the Minor electoral law which
provides for the election of presidential
electors by congressional districts The
opinion was unanimous. The court is di-
vided politically. being composed of three
republicans and two democrats. Ali OF
the points raised against the law are
treated at length and practically all over
ruled. The suit was brought by an appli-
cation for mandamus by the presidential
electors nominated upon the republican
ticket to compel the secretary OF state to
issue notices OF election under the old law
providing for their election on the general
state ticket. The mandamus is therefore
denied.
1t was alleged that the Minor law was
unconstitutional and void; that it is in
conflict with act 2, sec. l, of the federal
constitution, in that il attempted to dele
gate TO portions of the state fixed as dis
tricts by the legislature. the power to
choose electors; whereas, the section re-
ferred to, il was contended, conferred this
authority upon the state at large in a cor-
porate unit capacity, and though the leg
islature may thus delegate the authority
to districts, the law was fatally defective
L. T.
constitution, which provides that no law
shall embrace more than one object,
which shall be expressed in its title, in
that it provided for an election of alternate
electors, when the title only relates TO
choosing electors that If the provision for
the election of alteTnates was invalid, it
makes no provision for filling the office in
case the elector dies or becomes disQuali-
fed before acting.
The court saws in substance that the
question of greatest importance is that re-
lating to the true Interpretation of Sec l,
art. of the federal constitution. The
section provides that each state shall APP
point its presidential electors in such man
ner as the legislature may direct. 1t was
conceded on both sides that the word
state" means the body polite and cor
porate. Neither the district nor the unit
system has before been questioned since
the adoption of the constitution, so that
there has been the practical construction,
which has continued down to this day,
which establishes that, under sec. 2, art. /,
states have the choice OF methods and may
elect by districts or en- masse. Ii, under
the constitution, and after forty years, q
state had the right to choose electors by
districts, it does not lie with any court to
assert that that right has been lost to the
state by non-user.
1t is also urged the court continues,
that the act is in conflict with the four
teenth and fifteenth amendments. These
amendments are held to have relation to
conditions existing when adopted, and
that in effect they operate to repeal by
implication so much of article l, sec. ,,
as to the manner of choosing electors.
This view would. in our opinion, says the
court, be u strained construction that
would give to either OF these amendments
the effect TO annul the power expressly
delegated in the section and article re-
ferred to. 1t is very clear that the fifteenth
amendment was intended to preclude the
state from making any discrimination
against citizens on account of color. No
attempt is made to place Limitation upon
the power of the state except where the
right of suffrage is involved-the class
protected by this amendment shall not
be Disseminated against.
The remainder OF the decision relates
to the contentious by the electors as to
the wording in the act in question. The
court says that the act is in conflict with
the law of congress, in so far as it attempts
to fix date for the meeting of electors
and the method of certifying to their
action, but adds this does not render the
entire act imperative. In conclusion the
court SAYS:
We have considered the questions presented
with the care which the exceeding importance
OF the issue seemed TO peratively require and
our conclusion is that the statute must stand as
| the lawful edict of the legislature. The in
justice OF any other than uniform system of
eecting the president is manifest. As has been
we'll said: at Is one of the first and last con-
sequence and importance that in legisating
upon this subject it should not be regarded
from a party standpoint" But neither the
fact that this most i'm portant consideration has
! been overlooked or that this legislation may
result in serious injustice, can extend our juris-
diction or justify us in ursurping functions,
which, under the constitution. pertain TO the
the legislature. The writ should be denied.
Justice Montgomery writes the opinion
and the rest concur.