Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-10-18
DECLARESI Ii A LAW
United States Supreme Court
on the Miner Bill
THE DECISION IN Full
AZ Usual, DemocTsss Immediately Claim
Der Results VIII Tell

wAsHrsGToS. Oct. 1.-THE Michigan
democrats have won their great legal
battle. The supreme court Of the
United States has upheld the so-cslled
Miner law. The court today decided
that the act dividing the Wolserine
state INTO districts for the election of
presidential electors ls not obnonous 20
the provisions of the constitution con
ferring upon the state legislature the
power 20 hx the manner OF choosing
electors, nor OF the fourteenth amend
ment, and the Judgment of the Mlchi-
gan supreme court upholding the law
is affirmed. The act il held 10 be in
valid. however. IA one unimportsnt
detail-so far as IL conflicts with the
act OF congress Of 1887 relating 10 the
time OF meeting of the electors. The
opinion was rendered by Chief Justice
Fuller. The views oi the court viii be
written al length later on.
The Courts flBaing
The decision was not expected quite
so promptly anu there were bgt few
persons IN the court room when IL was
announced. Chef Justice Fuller read
tue finding of the court, winch was
unanimous. IL was as follows.
We are OF opinion that the objections
10 act No. 90 of the p0b.gc iaws of
Michigan OF 1891, bssed upon matters
OF local law, and having been ruled
by the supreme court of Michigan ad-
versely 10 the plaihUis IN error, whose
conclusion IA tuat regAr0 We are not
authorized 10 TeNlse. the decIs-
ION of the federal auss-
tons involved Was necessary.
And the validity OF the law as repug-
ma NJ 10 the constitution and laws Of
the United States, having been drawn
IN question and decided, and the ce-
cislon being IN favor OF Its validity,
this court nas jurisdiction under Sec
ton 709, revised statutes. The iudicsl
power OF the United States extends 10
all cases of law and equity arising
under the constitution anu laws of the
United States, and the ls case go
arising for the reason Just stated. We
concur with the supreme court of
Michigan, that go far As act No. SO con-
fiicts with the act of congress OF Febru
ary 3. 1887, in the particulars pointed
out, and in respect of which congress
possesses the power 10 legslate,
IT is imperative only TO that
extent, but that the act II
not for that reason void and may stand
s. 30 modified. We also hold with that
court that in view of the language of
the second clause of frst section, ar
ticle 4, Of the constitution, and the
contemporaneous and subseq uent con.
strucuon of that language IN practice,
this act cannot now ba held invalid
for want OF power Ia the state iegisla-
ture 10 provide for the appointment OF
electors for president and vice pres
dent OF the United States, as therein
prescribed And we are clear that that
clause of the first section of article 8
has not been changed by the four
teenth amendment % the constitution,
and that tins act is not obnox ious 10
objection on the ground OF conflict with
that amendment.
We make this announcement at this
time because OF az eNigency suggested
as apparently requiring immediate &C
fion under the state statutes and vii
hereafter file an opinion stating fully
the grounds of this decision. The
Judgment of the supreme court OF
Michigan is affirmed and the mandate
will lssue at once.