The Indianapolis journal., 1892-10-12
Supreme Justices Listen to Arguments
for and Against Michigan's Miner Act
Attorney General Miller Contends that the
Times ls Ripe for the Supreme Court 10
Step in and Preserve the Peoples Rights
Theft of a Political Right as Much Lar.
ceDy as Stealing Private Property.
Argument Of One of the Democratic Attorneys
Ridiculed by Justice Field-Senator Frank
Hiscock Speaks at Logansport

WASHINGTON, Oct 1.-THE Supreme
Court of the United States to-day heard
the arguments of counsel in the matter OF
the appeal from the Supreme Court Of the
State of Michigan. involving the constita-
tionality of the law, passed by the LeRis-
lature of that State, providing for the cleo
tion of presidential electors by districts
The motion to advance was made by III. NJ.
Dufield, counsel for the appellants, and Of
once granted by the court. the arguments
to be heard as soon as motions, etc., were
disposed OF. The prompt action OF the
court was doubtless due to o desire to have
the case heard by q full bench and dis
posed of before election day. By taking NJ
this case to-day, also, Chief-justice Fuller
and Justice Blatchford, who will not take
part In the Chicago lake-front cases, which
are next in position for oral argumentA
would be enabled to visit New York and
witness the Columb bian celebration.
The title of the Michigan case is "William
Mcpherson, jr.. ct al. Va. Robert r. Blacker.
Secretary of State" etc. The political as
pect Of the case is very pronounced, 90 10 ID
conceded that the effect of decision IN
favor of the validity OF the law will give
some of Michigan's electoral votes to the
Democrats. That Republicans appreciate
Its Importance. both In this election and in
its possible far-reaching conseq uences in
the future. 10 shown by the appearance Of
Attorney general Miller in the case az one
of the counsel on the Republican side of
the question. The Attorney general did
private counsellor. He took part in the argu.
ment 1t 10 very unusual In this country
for the Attorney general TO participate In
private caso, and his appearance today
was q subject OF talk among lawyers The
attorneys who took part In the arguments
to-day are: Attorney. general Ellis, Judge
Chaplin, formerly of the Supreme Court OF
Michigan, and Otto Kirschnor, formerly
constitutionality of the law; and on the
other side were II. nj. Dufheld and Attor-
ney- general Miller and Fred A. Baker.
leading Democratic lawyer OF Michigan,
who is retained on the Republican side OF
the case.
Mr.. DUFFIELD's ARGUMENT.
In his argument Mr.. Dufield relied prin-
cipally on the contention that the Miner
act was In violation of the fourteenth
amendm ent to the Constitution, declaring
that no State shall enforce or make any
law abridging the privileges of citizens OF
the United States and that as at the time
cltlZeD9
electors. that system could not DO changed.
This amendment and tho thirteenth and
fifteenth amendments, he insisted, created
q citizenship of the United States, ana u
was in violation of the Constitution for
the State to deny to each citizen the right
TO vote for all the presidential electors to
which the State is entitled.
Justice Gray inquired if he held that the
Legislature could not choose the electors
itself.
Mr. Duffield responded In the Affirmative.
The three great postwar amendments he
asserted, put into the Constitution guar.
antee TO every citizen to be treated alike
and made national citizenship where
there had heretofore been q citizenship
only by virtue of citizenship in state.
Messrs Champlin and Kirschner. as their
first point. raised the question OF jurisdic-
tion. maintaining that in the form in which
the case came here-namely, an application
for writ of mancainus to compel the Seo-
retary of State of Michigan TO give GER
tain notice of the coming election-it was
not renewable in federal court, bnt only
in n state court. Mr. Duffields points were
answered with reference TO the fourteenth
amendment, and it was contended that its
sole object was TO prevent discrimination.
and had no application 70 cases where all
citizens were treated alike. MIR. kirschner
made n strong point OF the political nature
of the case, anu cited precedents TO show
that the courts had ruled that political
questions must be left for settlement to
the pOlltlcal departments OF t0c govern
ment. and in this part OF his talk he sever
| al times turned. apparently Intentionally.
| towards Attorney general Miller. Several
times the courts had made the mistake OF
| passing upon purely political controversies;
| aud in every instance the result was fail
| of the bench in public estimation. he was
| proceeding to argue that the matter of
presidential electors was one over which
the State Legislatures as the political reD'
resentatives of the states: had complets
| control, when Justice Field interrupted
| and asked:
Gould the State Legislature delegate to
| Ann Arbor College the right to appoint
these electorsP
Mr.. Kirschner with some hesitation)-I
don't see why not.
To this the Justice replied rather curtlyl
~ don't see why not either. from your line
| of argument"
Mr.. Kirschner. proceeding. said that the
| policy of changing the method of selecting
presidential electors might be questioned.
| but he had never heard the Legality OF any
| change questioned.
Justice Harlan-CouId the Legislature
| authorize one congressional district 10 So
lect the electors for the whole statef
Mr.. kirschner-Yes, your honor
To which Attorney general Ellis addedi
"But there is no danger of it,"
Mr.. KIrschner. in his argument. deplored
| the tendency TO bring all disputes into
court, and said this was an attempt TO en-
broil the court in a political matter which
! of the government
ATToRNEY-GENERAL MILLER's POINTS.
Attorney general Miller. in his open.
| ing, answered as follows:
IhoId IL to be one of the most hopeful signs OF
| the times that the courts either arousinR OF
are being aroused TO the fact that II the rights Of
| the people OF the United states are TO be pre-
| served they must be preserved by an Observance
| and enforcement of the laws; that they pre-
pared TO take. and are taking. by the wrists po-
| litcal bosses who. assuming that questions are
| purely political, are committing grand larceny
with reference TO the rights of the people OF the
United States. In saying this am not saying it
| as a partisan. am perfectly well aware that
tionments by the party 10 which 1 belong. as
well as by the party To which am opposed, ana
| Il IL high time the courts should say 10 these
WORTHLESS, it il just much larceny 10 steal po-
litcal right AZ 10 Is To steal private property.
| Hence. say, II this case comes here in such q
way that the court may properly take hold OF IL.
| jt Is not only right, but, IL seems TO me, the
| highest opportunity for the court TO serve the
| country aud help TO preserve Its institutions.
Mr.. Miller agued that the trainers of the
| Constitution intended that the States
| should be represented as States. and that
the power of choosing electors was granted
| not TO the Legislature. but to the States
| the Legislature simply having the duty of
| fixing the manner OF execution of the
| power.
Justice Gray-Was the district system
| while in operation ever challenged as
/ being beyOnd the power of the leRis.