Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-10-12
THE MICHIGAN ELECTORAL LAW.
Arguments a to Its ConstitutionalIty Be-
fore the United States Supreme Court.

| iore the united states supreme Court.
The Michigan law providing for the election
Of presidential electors by congressional cleo
tors, known as the Miner law came ND for con-
sideration by the Supreme Court yesterday
afternoon on arguments to its constitution
ality.
| William Mcpherson and others, who are the
republican electors, are seeking a mandamus to
compel the secretary of state of Michigan to
issue the notice Of election under the old law.
The claim set forth by Mcpherson and others
| Is that the Miner law is unconstitutional The
supreme court Of the state Of Michigan refused
the writ, holding that the law was constitutional
and the petitioners carried the case up to the
supreme Court. Attorney General Miller is
| one OF the counsel associated with H. NJ Duff
field and F. A. Baker as counsel for the peti-
| TONERS. who seek to overthrow the law
State Attorney General A. A. Ellis and Otto
kirchner represent the state of Michigan.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE LAW
| 1t was commended by the petitioners that the
! law was void and Of non-effect for the reasons
that 1t controvened the second clause, section
l OF article Of the Constitutions that it contro-
| vened and was repugnant to the fourteenth
| amendment to the Constitution; that it was in
| direct contradiction to the act of Congress Of
February 8, 1887. In support of the first rea-
| son 1t was argued that the whole state must
name the electors, that portion of the voters
| could not name one and another portion an
other, within the meaning of the Constitution.
| The second reason was based upon the allega-
| ton that by the operation Of the law the rights
| and privileges of the voters of Michigan were
abridged, in that heretofore they had the
privilege and right Of voting for all the electors
of the state. but now they could vote for but
two, which is forbidden by the fourteenth
amendment. The third reason was based upon
| the variations from the act of February 8,
1887. First. The meeting of electors is fixed for
| the first Wednesday in December instead Of
| the second Monday in January. Second Makes
| It the duty of the secretary of state to prepare
lists of electors and alternate electors and de-
liver them to one of the electors. No provision
| Is made in the state act for sending any certif-
| cate to the Secretary of State Of the United
States. other United States official. and no
| provision for making any statement of the
number of votes given for persons voted for for
| the presidential electors.
| For the defense it was maintained that the
| law was wholly constitutional and right, COM
ing within the clause which gives to the legis-
| lature the power to determine how the choice
| of electors shall be made.
| Mr.. Duffeld opened the case and during his
| argument Justice GRAY inquired if he held that
the legislature could not choose the electors
| itself
Mr.. Duf1ield responded in the affirmative
| The three great post war amendments, he as
serted put into the Constitution a guarantee
| to every citizen to be treated alike and made a
national citizenship where there had heretofore
been citizenship only by virtue of citizen
| ship in state.
Messrs. Champlin and Kirchner. as their first
point, raised the question of Jurisdiction main
tanning that in the form in which the case came
| here-vlz, an application for a writ of man
daInus to compel the secretary of state of Michi-
gan TO give certain notice of the coming cleo
tion-it Was not renewable in federal court
I hIN fvNfr~ ctatn
| the fourteenth amendment. it was contended
| that Its sole object was to prevent discrimina-
| ton and had no application to cases where all
| citizens were treated alike.
A POLITICAL NATTER
Mr.. kirchner made point of the political
nature of the case, and cited precedents to show
that the court had ruled that political questions
must be left for settlement to the political de-
partments of the government.
He was proceeding TO argue that the matter
of presidential electors was one which the state
legislatures as the political representatives of
the states. had complete control, when Justice
Field interrupting, asked: Gould the state
| legislature delegate Ann Arbor College the
right to appoint these elcctorsI'
MIR. kirchner, with some hesitation, Il don't
see why not
To this the Justice replied rather curtlv. 81
don't see why not either from your line Of argu-
ment."
Mr.. Kirchner. proceeding said thot the nolicv
! of changing the method Of selecting nresi
| DENTAL electors might he questioned but he
had never heard the LEGALITY of any chance
| questioned.
Justice Haran-C Could the legislature author
ize one congressional district To select the cleo
| tors for the whole state7
Mr. Kirchner-Yes, Your honor
To which Attorney General Ellis added:
| .'But there is no danger of it,
| -
ihh AIIohNEI 'LNhHAL POSITION.
Attorney General Miller did not appear
| in his official capacity but as attorney. at
| the request of Mr. Duftield Pm. in Wow Of
| ,bo pras;,1.,,,., .,-.r,.,;...-;- ~. -.
Cn,,l,rs ~. Al LIP 70
oL;I;, - ',,,;s iie ~ 'he uc9ii
49,. n;. ~ aioa. III ,no it'eI Vi
So h2paa, ~, p"liS anu VI VIC leia
conaraI NJ N;I' -iiu LIE h'to. i.ey
s;oTi6canca NJ I.rcti".A. :, pI U.s.; a uusu"
| ;ns;stoJ ~, a. 60 st'I,iS - "a. ,o in.
IN 80, GO .bo raaso ,bat - 80 ln ,, ,,I.
oonsr;ran, ~. r. rn,III,a ~ ""s III Vi
The Snpreme Gonrt inPo olive 'i N Gas
Maid some attention 10 tSis ossar,;or ~ IN rol
| rmarlo uo "a ~ Al A-' ~
81 sbaII occnnv br+ q fo,v ,,irr,o, ,,o
recently come into tho co.. A. n"ru
Iwonii S,,aaos, ~ ,h<rs 10 po. .;.
10 dac;de t5;s onast;on H., 80 t. linz
| go H. IT, - -, -, 81. ,,.,iso:..
nynt;i th;s act 90 .bo 80 20 W;oh;,o .ns
nassad I'd ,o, ~ =. .bo ', thnnhniS was
= Al. - i