Evening journal., 1892-10-18
THE MINER LAW IS vALIL
A Unanimous Decision Givei
by the Supreme Court.
MICHIGANs VOTE WILL BE DIVIDED

The Republicans Claim They WIN BE Abl
TO Elect Ten of the Fourteen Electors
but the Democrats DO Not Conceds
This-Blaine on the Campaign.
WASHINGTON, Oct. Is-The United States
supreme court has affirmed the ruling OF
the state court of Michigan in the case in
volving the constitutionality Of the Minei
election law. This decision is in favor oi
the Democrats. BY the Miner law whict
this decision upholds, presidential electors
are chosen by districts.
The Supreme court holds that the law Of
Michigan dividing the state into districts
for the election of presidential electors is
invalid only so far as IL conflicts with the
act Of congress Of 1887, relating to time oi
meeting of the electors The act is not OBJ
noxious to the provisions of the constitu
tion comforting upon the state Legislature
the power to fix the manner Of choosing
electors The view Of the court will be
written at length later by Chief Justice
Fuller.
The following is the full text Of the pre-
liminary opinion rendered by Chief Justice
Fuller in the Michigan case:
The Preliminary Opinion.
No. l,l70. Mcpherson ct al. versus Blacker.
secretary Of state In error TO the supreme
court of Michigan. We are Of opinion that the
objections 70 act No 80 of tho public laws OF
Michigan of 1891, based upon matters OF local
law, having been ruled by the supreme court
OF Michigan adversely TO plaintiffs in error
whose conclusions in that regard we are not
authorized TO reverse, the decision Of tho
federal questions involved was necessary, and
the validity OF the law as repugnant 70 the con
stitution and laws OF the United States having
been drawn in question and decided, and tho
decision being in favor of its validity, thii
court has jurisdiction under section 100 Of tho
revised statute Tho judicial power OF the
United States extends TO all cases OF law and
equity arising under the constitution and laws
Of tho United States, and this IS a case 50 aris
ing for the reason just stated
We concur with the supreme court OF Michi
gan that SO far as act No. % conflicts with IN,
act Of congress Of Feb, 3, 1881 in the particular
pointed out and in respect Of which congress
possesses the power 20 lcgislate, h "a inopora
tive only to that extent, but that the act Is MOI
for that reason void and may stand as 81
modified.
We also hold with that court that in view ol
the language OF the second clause of tho frs
section OF article OF the constitution, and th'
contomporaneous and subsequent construction
of that language in practice, this act canun
now be held invalid for want OF power in th
state legislature to provide for the appointmon
OF electors of president and vice president o
the United States as therein prescribed, aud Va
are clear that that clause of tho first section o
article II has not been changed by the four
toenth amendment 10 the constitution, and tina
this act Is not obnoxious 20 objection on tn
ground Of conflict with that amendment.
We make this announcement at this time be
cause OF an oxigoLcy suggested as apparent
requiring immediate action undor tho stat
statutes, and viii hereafter file an opinion stat
ing fully tho grounds OF this decision. Tn
judgment of the supreme court Of Michigan
affirmed and the mandate viii issue at once.
Tho Result Of the Decision.
The decision means that Michigan wi
cast in all probability four OF her fourtee
votes for Cleveland and Stevenson. Som
of the Democrats claim that they will ne
seven votes. Each congressional distriC
viii choose an elector and each party wi
have as many OF the district electors as
carries congressional districts. The tw
electors at large are also TO be chosen !
districts, but by great districts taking
half the state instead OF congressional di
tricts The Republicans insist that the
will carry both Of these greater distric
and no fewer than eight Of the congressioi
al districts