St. Paul daily globe., 1892-06-18
Michigan Republican Fine
Grained TricksterSnCom-
pletely Baked.
Unanimous Opinion Against
Them by the State Su-
ppeme Court.
The Legislative Edict Sus-
tanned in General and in
Detail.
Congressman Bryan Takes a
Hard Fall Out Of Bill
Mckinley.

LANSING, Mich, June 17.-The su-
preme court today handed down de-
cison sust;sssing the Miner electoral
law. which provided for the election of
presidential electors by congressional
districts. The opinion was unanimous.
The court is divided politically, three
Republicans and two Democrats. All
of the points raised against the law are
treated at length and practically all
oveyruled.
The suit was brought by an applica-
tion for mandamus by the presidential
electors nominated upon the Republican
ticket, to compel the secretary of state
to issue notices of election under the
old law, providing for their election on
the general state ticket. The man
damuS is therefore denied.
1t was alleged that the Miner law was
unconstitutional and void; that it is in
conflict with act ., section l of the fed
eral constitution, in that it attempts to
delegate 10 portions of the state fixed as
districts by the legislature; whereas,
the section referred to. it was contend
ed, conferred this authority upon the
atate at large in
A Corporate Unit Capacity,
and though the legislature may thus
delegate the authority to, districts, the
law was fatally defective in violating
article 4, section 90 of the state consti-
! tuition, which provides that no law shall
embrace more than one object, which
shall bc expressed in its title.
in that it provided for an
election of alternate electors when
the title only relates to choos-
ing electors: that if the provision for
election of aternateS was valid. il
makes no provision for filling the Office
in case the elect0r dies or becomes dis
qualified before acting.
The court says in substance that tine
question of greatest importance is that
relating to the true Interpretation of
section l, article 2. of the federal con.
SIitntion. The section provides that each
state shall appoint its presidential elect
OrS in such manner as the Legislature
may direct. 1t was conceded on
both sides that the word "State' means
| the body polite and cooperate. Neither
the district nor the unit system has be-
fore been questioned, since the adop
tiOn OF the constitution. So that there
has been the practical construction
which has continued down to this day
which establishes that. under SECTION 2,
article l, states have the choice of meth
ods, and may elect 'J ..,
BY Districts or En- Masse.
If. under the constitution, and after
| forty years q state had the right to
choose electors by districts, it does not
| lie with any &C lrt to assert that that
! right has been lost to the state by non
| user. 1t is also urged, the court con-
tinued, that the act is in conflict
with the fourteenth and fifteenth
| amendments. Th ,se amendments are
! held to have relation to conditions exist
| ing when adopted and that in effect
they operate 10 repeat by implication Sc
much of article l, section 2, as to the
manner of choosing electors.
This view would, in OUR opinion, says
the court. be a. strained construction
that would give TO either of these
| amendments the effect Ito annul the
| power expressly delegated in the sec
ton and article deferred to. II
| is very clear that. the fif
teenth amendment was intended
| to preclude the state from making
any discrimination against citizens or
account of color. No attempt is made
! to place limitation upon the power oi
| the state except where the right of suf
frage is involved. The class protected
| by this amendment shall not be dis
| eliminated against.
One Point OF Conflict.
The remainder of the decision related
| to the contentious by the relatorS as tt
] h1 of q of in fTI,f
court says that the act is in conflict
with the law of congress, in so far as il
attempts to fix date for the meeting ot
the electors and the method of certify
| ing to their action, but adds, this doe:
not render the entire act imperative.
In conclusion the court says: 1--WE
| have considered the questions presented
| with the care which the exceeding i'm
| pOrtance of the issue seemed to impera
| lively require. and our conclusion i:
| that the statute must stand as the law
| full edict of the legislature. The injus
tice of any other than uniform system
of electlng a president is manifest. A:
| has been well said, ut is of the frs
and last consequence and Importance
that in legislating upon this subject i
| should not be regarded from party
standpoint"
Bnt neither the fact that this mos
important consideration has been over
looked nor that this legislation may re-
suit in serious injustice. can extend oul
jurisdiction or justify us usurping func
tions which, under the constitution
pertain to the legislature. The wri
should be denied.
Justice Montgomery writes the opin
ion and the rest concur. The case will
not be carried to the United States su