The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-06-18
THE MINER LAW is UPHELD
Michigan Electoral Statute Backed Up
by q Supreme Court Decision.
Gratis Unanimous on the Question Of How
Presidential Electors Nay Be Selected.

LANSING, Mich. June 1.-THE Supreme
Court to-day handed down a decision sus-
tanning the Miner electoral law which pro-
vides for the election of presidential elect
Ors by congressional districts The opinion
was unanimous Tho court is di-
vided politically. three Republic
an and two Democratic. All
of the points raised against the
law are treated at length and practically
all overruied. The suit was brought by
an application for maudamus by tho pres
idential electors nominated upon tho Re-
publican ticket, to compel the Secretary OF
State to issue notices of election under the
old law providing for the election on the
therefore denied.
1t was alleged that the Miner law was
unconstitutional and void; that it is In
conflict with Article 2, Section ] of the
federal Constitution, in that il attempts to
delegate to portions of the State fixed
as districts by the Legislature; whereas
In the section referred to, It was con-
tended, the Constitution conferred this
authority upon the State AZ large In a
corporate unit capacity, and though tho
ty to districts the law was fatally defective
in violating Article 4, Section 20, OF tho
state Constitution, which provides that no
law shall embrace moro than one
object; i. ws ssIs shall n .h be expresses; rrSl
vided for an election of alternate
electors when tho tltlo only relates to
choosing electors; that If the provision for
election of elternatos was valid, IL makes
no provision for filing the office In case
the eiector dies or becomes disqualified be-
fore acting. The court says In substance
that the'questiOn of greatest Importance ls
that relating to the true Interpretation OF
Section !. Article 2. Of the federal Constr
tuition.
The section provides that each State
shall appoint its presidential electors in
such manner ns the legislation may direct.
1t WAS conceded on both sides that tho
corporate. Neither the district nor
the unit system hos before been
questioned since the adoption OF the
Constitution. SO that there has
been the practical construction which has
continued down to this day which estab-
fishes that, under Section 2, Article i,
States have the choice of methods. and
may elect 10y districts or en- masse. Ii, un-
der the Constitution and after forty years,
state had the right TO choose electors 10y
districts. it does not lie With any court TO
assert that that right has been lost to the
State By nOn-user.
1T is also urged" the court continued,
"that tho act is IN conflict with the four
tenth and fifteenth amendments. These
amendments are held TO have relation 10
conditions existing when adopted, and
that In effect they operate TO repeal by i'm
plicafion so much of Article /, Section 2. az
to the manner of choosing electors. This
view would, IN our opinion, be a strained
construction that would give to either
of these amendments the effect to
annul the power expressly delegated
In the section and article referred to-. 1t is
very clear that the fifteenth amendment
was intended to preclude the State from
making any discrimination against citizens
on account of color. No attempt 10 made
to place limitation upon tho power of the
State except where the right OF suffrage Is
involved. The class protected by this
amendment shall not be Disseminated
against"
The remainder of the decision relates to
the contentious by the electors as to the
wording In the act In queation. Tho court
says that the act Is in conflict with the law
of Con gress in so far as il attempts to fix q
late for the meeting of electors and the
method of certifying to their action. but
adds this does not render the entire act In
operative.
In conclusion the court SAYS: I'VE have
considered the questions presented with tho
care that the exceeding importance of the
reach the conclusion that the statute musb
stand as the lawful ediCt of tho Lepisln-
ture The injustice of any other than o
uniform system of selecting tho President
of the United States 10 manifest. In leRis-
lating upon this subject IT should not be
regarded from o party stand. point, bnt
neither the fact that this i'm portant con-
sideration has been overlooked nor that
this legislation may result in serious IN
Justice can extend our Jurisdiction or just
ify rs IN usurping functions which, under
the Constitution, pertain 20 the Legisla-
ture"
The court politically is three Republic
an and two. Democratic. The Miner law
was passed by the last Legislature, which
was Democratic. The case Will now be
carried to the Supreme Court of the United
States