Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1892-10-20

OF the Mlcnlgdn 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 State to fix
a mole Of choosing electors. The con-
coded effort of the decision is 20 give
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 at this time
because of the eXigency suggested by
counsel requiring early action. Here
after the court would file it's 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 juris-
diction. The chief justice said further
the court ruled, in view Of the language
of the clause of the constitution giving
determine the method of ChOOS-
ing presidential electors and of COntem-
p0raneous construction, that the act
cannot be held invalid for want of
power in the state legislature to pass
such Il law, adding that the clause OF
the first section of article of the COLI
stitution was not changed by the four
4
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 as that trayerSed by the SUI
preme court of Michigan. The first
claim of the plaintiffs was that section
/, article ,, of the constitution Of the
United States does not permit the state
50 wide Il liberty as the legislature of
Michigan has assumed. The broad per
mission which this article grants the
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
the whole state must act i'll naming all
the electors, for it is the intent of this
article that the state must act us unit
i'll casting its electoral vote for preSi-
dent. 1t was never contemplated that
one part of the state should name one
clector and another part another, OF
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
miSsable for the legislature to direct,
but only such manner as Will meet the
condition is constitutional. This argu-
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 all
its voters vote in different districts for
separate electors. 1t assumed that 1t is
not the states action when the leGlSla-
ture, which is the representative of the
acts for the whole people, delegates the
choice of electors to different divisions
ton, to say the least, and one which
the Michigan court swept away as With
out 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 its lit
eral meaning.
The second point raised by the plain
tiff was that this Miner law violated
the 14th amendment. 1t abridges 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 Cit
zens against discrimination, ana has no
application 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
constitution of the United States is
ions of the United States supreme court
Interpreting The 14th amendment in
this way are cited, which seem to shut
the court up to the alternative of re
versing its former judgments or reject
ing this point of the republican plain
tiffs.
The preliminary question of the iuriS-
dictiOn of the court over what is prinl-
arily a political question was not the
least important one of which the court
decided. Of course this question was
involved in the other one of the Suprem-
acy of state legislatures over methods
of choosing electors. If states through
their legislators are sovereign here, the
courts of the United States have no
power to control or review their action.
This was the contention of the defend
ers of this Miner law.
Further these defendants urged that
the question involved was political
one and not a legal one; was essentially
the kind of question which the court
had before ruled could not properly
come before it.
The case was brought by the republi-
cans and defended by the democrats.
Lansing. Mich, Oct 1.-THE history
of the Miner law is interesting. This
act now sustained by the highest jul
dicial tribunal of the nation had its
origin in the neglect of the republicans.
The republicans had clear majority in