Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-10-13
Tba w,c,,v,h Case.

The Michigan case referred 20 in our
kilograms OF yesterday from Washington
Is not an apportioninent case at oil, but ia
nevertheless an important case. The very
fact thGt the Supreme Cont Of the United
States has taken jurisdiction in IL is in
itself proof positive that high questions
IRE involved. though it would seem diff
cult TO raise any reasonable doubt in any
body's mind who has studied the subject
on the principal poiht that seems to
be involved IN the ca5e-namely. the
right Of tho Legislature OF Michigan
Tor any o.ber State) to provide by law
that her electors Of President and Vice
President shall DO elected bg districts, and
the right to district the State for that
purpose. This however. is not the sole
point involved in tho Michigan case, but
Of course it is the foundation OF all the
points. II "a not case like those pefdine
10 New York. Indians, and other States
which have apportionment cases pending
In the courts
The provision in the United States Con-
stitution as to the election or appoint
ment Of electors of President and Vice
President is ID the words following
wit:
Each STATE shall appoint in such manner ~
the Legislature thereof may direct number Of
electors equal TO the whole number OF senators
and Representatives to which the State may be
| entitled in the Congress"
That language IS conclusive and exclu-
siye The power is lodged with each State
Legislature to proyide the manner in which
that States presidential electors shall be
appointed" The Federal Constitution
does not even employ the word "elect,''
butithe word "appoint" % Zach State
shall appoint" That is. elect or otherwise
appoint This power has never hitherto
been quosti oned. The Legislature of South
Carolina appointed the presidential elect
ors for that State up to the year 1860. That
body assembled on the daS the other States
voted for President and appointed
South Cardinals electors. In the Supreme
Court at Washington on Tuesday one of
the justices asked one of the counsel If he
did not concede the right of the Legisla-
ture to elect electors and he replied that
he did mol. Good Heavens, what next?
The right of the several State Legisla-
lures TO choose or appoint the electors OF
President Is, as we have said, beyond dis
pitte. II the Constitution of Michigan
contained provision denying or limiting
this right or power, such provision would
itself he in violation of the Federal Consti-
tttion. and therefore null and void. Here,
it would seem at first blush. is a Federal
question:" or. in other words, question
which would give to the Supreme
Court of the United States jurisdiction.
Whatever the Federal question involved,
the case now has its place upon the docket
of the Supreme Court Of the United States,
and has been advanced as case important
enough to demahd early or Immediate de-
c:sion.
The telegram alluded to says that the
question involved in the Michigan case is
the right to elect presidential electors by
congressional districts" The word 81 con-
gressional" might have been omitted, we
suppose, though we do not Know. Where
the construction of SO plain provision Of
the Federal Constitution as the one quoted
hereinbefore is called in question, no pro-
vision of that Instruuent Is safe from ju-
deal construction by the courts of the
United States. The contention is hardly
tenable that the Michigan law violates the
fourteenth amendment.
We have said that the Michigan case is
not an apportionment case at all, but
districting case. But for our part. we do
not see that the Supreme Court has any
more right to decide an apportionment
case than it has to decide a distrcting
case. If that all-powerful court under
takes to decide what is an improper or IN
constitutional apportionins, it may with
equal pyopriety and for as good reasons
undertake TO decide what is an improper,
unbelievable. Gnd unconstitutional district
inc. ---..--..