Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1892-10-21
Supreme Court Of the United
States Gives an Important
Decision.
Presidential Electors May Be
Chosen by Congressional
Districts.
Grounds on Which the Act Was
Attacked History Of the
Measure.

w ASHlNGlON. Oct. Ill he nlted
States Supreme court, by Chief Justice
Fuller, to-day affirmed the Judgment
of the Michigan Supreme court, up
holding the constitutionality of the
famous Miner law, providing for
the election of presidential cleo
tors by Congressional districts instead
of by the State as a whole. The court
holds that the fourteenth amendment
did not limit the right of Il State to fix
a mode of choosing electors. The con-
ceded effort of the decision is 20 give a
| part at least of the Michigan electoral
vote to Cleveland.
| Chief Justice Fuller, in announcing
| the conclusion of the court, said the
announcement was made ut this time
! because of the cNigency suggested by
counsel requiring early action. Here
after the court would file its opinion
| setting forth more fully the grounds
on which it had decided the case. On
| the question of jurisdiction. which
point the democrats raised. the chief
| Justice said the court ruled that. under
section 100 revised statutes it had jtlriS-
diction. The chief justice said further
| the court ruled. in view of the languag"
of the clause of the constitution giving
to state legislatures the right 10
determine the method of chOoS-
| inc presidential electors and of Contem-
| porancouS construction. that the act
cannot be held invalid for want of
power III the state legislature to pass
such Il law. adding that the clause of
! the first section of article of the con-
stitution was not changed by the four
| tccnth amendment. and that the law is
not obnoxious to that amendment.
The ground upon which the United
States supreme court asked to rule
against this Miner law is substantially
the same rs that travcIScd by the SIT
prone court of Michigan. The first
claim of the plaintiffs was that section
| 1, article >, of the constitution of the
| United States does not permit the state
so wide Il liberty rs the legislature OF
Michigan has assumed. The broad per
mission which this article grants til"
states to appoint in such manner as
| the legislature thereof may direct Il
number of electors is subject to con-
ditiOnS. One of these conditions is that
I the whole state must act in naming I'LL
the electors, for it is the intent Of this
article that the state must act as Il unit
| i'll casting its electoral vote for prcSi-
dent. 1t was never contemplated that
one part Of the state should name one
! clcctOr and another part another, or
| one portion Of the voters one and other
| portions of the voters the others. Any
way in which all the voters participate
| alike in choosing all the electors is per-
miSsablc for the legislature to direct,
but only such manner as will meet the
condition is constitutional. This arg1l-
ment assumed, of course, that the state
can only be said to act when all its
voters vote for all the electors at once,
and that the state does not act when I'LL
its voters vote in different districts for
separate electors. 1t assumed that it is
not the states action when the lpgiSla-
ture, which is the representative of the
acts for the whole people, delegates the
choice of electors to different divisions
of the people. This was fine distinc-
ton. to say the least, and one which
the Michigan court swept away as with
out q difference. The defense met this
point by quoting the language of the
constitution, and affirming that the
practice since the beginning of the gov
eminent has been in accord with it's lit
er;ll meaning.
The second point raised by the plain
tiff was that this Miner law violated
the 18th amendment. 1t ablidgcs the
rights and privileges Of the voters Of
Michigan, who have heretofore posses
sed the right now denied them of voting
for the whole number of electors. This
was another fine point which gave the
Michigan court no trouble. That court
dismissed it upon similar ground to
that urged by the defense in the case
here. This ground was that the 14th |
amendment is intended to protect citi |
ZenS against discrimination, and has no |
to notifications of the man
ner in which the suffrage may be used,
which apply to all citizens alike Under
the Miner alW every citizen of Michigan
has the same rights as every other citi-
zen and no right granted him by the
Of the United States is
denied or abridged. Certain decis-
ions of the United States supreme court
the 18th amendment i'm
this way are cited, which seem to shut
the court up to the alternative Of re
versing it's former judgments or reject
ing this point of the republican plain
lifts.
The preliminary question Of the juris-
LECTION of the court over what is prim-
irily a political question was not the
east important one of which the court
lecided. OF course this question was
involved in the other one of the suprem
ICY of state legislatures over methods
If choosing electors If states through
heir legislators are sovereign here, the
courts of the United States have no ]
,ower to control or review their action.
This was the contention of the defend
rs of this Miner law. S
Further these defendants urged that f
he question involved was a political q
ne and not a legal one; was essentially o
he kind Of question which the court d
ad before r1I1pd coI1d NOT nrODprIy T