Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-05-18
MICHIGAN'S DISPUTE.
Tho Controversy May Have an Important
Bearing on the Presidential Contest
Features Which Give 1t . Serious Aspect

-AntcroBtlnS Electoral FreCoOcutes
THE case brought by the Republicans
of Michigan before the Supreme Court OF
that State to test the validity of the law
passed by the present Democratic Legisla-
ture providing for the choice of Presidential
electors this fall in the Congressional dis
tricts instead of by the State Mt large is
the beginning of a struggle which will as
sumo more importance as election day ap-
proaches, and upon which 1t is entirely pos
siDle that the naming OF the next Presi-
dent may depend. The Congressional dis
tricts have, of course, been gerrymandered
by the same Legislature that passed tn G law
in dispute, and the Democrats confidently
expect, therefore, to secure at least half OF
Michigan's IA electoral votes.
These seven votes might easily become
the decisive factor in the national struggle.
The hitherto solid South is relied upon
to furnish the nominees of the coming
Chicago convention with 15s electors. The
number necessary for choice is 223, leaving
"a still to be secured. If the Democrats
should be so fortunate as to carry New
York, New Jersey and Indiana, with their 81
electors, only three more from the Michigan
districts would be necessary to insure sue
cess, without the support of Connecticut,
usually so close in national contests. Or II
the Democrats should lose Indiana and
carry Connecticut and Rhode Island, seven
or eight district votes from the Wolverine
State would either tie the Electoral College
or turn the scale, and tie this year would
mean the election of the Democratic candi-
date by the House of Representatives. Then,
too, should the Republicans be successful in
breaking the Southern ranks and capturing
West Virginia's six votes, the Michigan con-
tingent might be able to close the gap in
Ak,<n na,, 4. Oh
lengthy series of combinations, few
votes from Michigan are capable of playing
a most decisive part in the electoral total
A Serious Dispute Very Probable.
BUT even this is not the most serious
feature of the matter. If both the Repub-
lican ana Democratic parties in Michigan
persist in the present declarations the for
mer will in November vote for IA electors
under the plan which has been in vogue,
while the latter will choose by the district
method. In that case each party will un-
questionably claim to have elected the en-
tire delegation, and in the event that the II
disputed votes have any bearing upon the
final result the controversy will at once be-
come national i'll every sense of the word.
The loss of IA votes to one organization and
their acquisition by another would entail a
net gain of %, quite enough to be factor of
the utmost Importance.
The Michigan Democrats back their posi-
ton upon the language of the Federal Con-
stitutfon, which says "eacn State shall ap-
point in the manner which the Legislature
thereof may direct" etc. The Republican
claim is to the effect that under the method
adopted by the Legislature the State, as IL
Stale, does not appoint at all. They also
argue that in case the electors were evenly
divided, seven to seven, Michigan would
suit would be just the same if the Wolverine
State were not in the Union. The present
Supreme Court of Michigan has Republic
an majority, and the Supreme Courts of
Western States, the judges of which are
usually elected for short terms, are noted
for deciding political questions according to
their partisan leanings. 1t is very probable,
therefore, that although the precedents of a
hundred years establish the power of the
Legislature as practically unlimited, the
Michigan tribunal will declare the law pro-
vidlns for the election by districts invalid.
Indications of a Crisis.
THE Democrats announce in the most
vigorous manner that they will not pay the
slightest heed to any such decision, claim
ing the State Supreme Court cannot over.
ride the Federal Constitution. Michigan's
present Governor, L. Q. Winans, is a Demo-
crat, and will undoubtedly stand by his
party, and certify to the election of the en-
tire II Democrats If the Republicans persist
in running their candidates in the State at
large. Considering that the Federal Gov
ernment has no tribunal for deciding such a
dispute, except by special enactment, as in
the case of the famous electoral commission
OF 1876 it is impossible to more than specu-
late as to where or how such a controversy
would end.
The credit or blame, however, of injecting
this point into the present Presidential con-
test does not belong to Michigan, but to
Ohio. During the Campbell regime in the
Buckeye State while the Legislature was
n1,,, rot it,h hnf t,,op
Buchanan introduced bill similar in its
provisions to the one afterward adopted in
Michigan. 1t was largely intended as u
bluff, though. The Democrats had Just
passed the notorious gerryma nder which
retired Mckinley and so many other prom.
inent Ohio Republicans from Congress.
Some of these MEMBERS anxious to pre-
serve their seats, were pressing through
Reeds House of Representatives what was
called an ant-gerry bill, and
which provided that the Congressional
GfthD the sae Sye sh9ue dssres Gi lines held
in 1888. The buckeye Democrats vowed
that if this measure was passed they would
put through the Buchanan scheme for
threat was Carried into effect. Tho Ohio
Democrats had a particularly good reason
for going slow, because another Legislature
was to be chosen before the Presidential
election, which could easily repeal the law
and the authors would incur all the odium
without any OF the fruits. But this consid-
Grafton did not apply to Michigan, where
another Legislature will not assemble until
after the national contest has been decided,
and the Buchanan scneme was promptly
taken up in the Wolverine state.
The Practice in Former Campaigns.
WHILE the choice of electors by districts
is quite a novelty at the present time, it was
by no means SO in the earlier days of the
nation, and u large number of precedents
have been established as to the power of
the State Legislatures in the premises
Until 1924 a majority of the various Legis-
their own votes, without the people hav-
ing any direct voice in the matter
either by districts or otherwise. The
fl rst dispute on the matter was in 1897,
at the third national election, when John
Adams and Jefferson were the opposing can
didates. The Legislature OF Vermont, with
out even going through the formality of pre-
viously deciding upon the manner in which
States quota favorable to Adams The point
was raised that while the Legislature had
the power to choose the electors it should
have first passed law regulating the
method, but Vermont's votes. were finally
counted by unanimous consent, insuring the
election OF Adams.
Pennsylvania had some hot disputes on
the subject. In 1893 the State Senate had
Federalist ma jority, while the adherents of
jefferson were IN control in theLower House.
The first body insisted that the electors
that they should be elected on a general
ticket. Governor Mexican took an active
part in tine quarrel before it was decided.
Aaron Burr owed large part of his prom
inence in the campaign to the fact that he
had overturned the Federalist majority in
New York City, and secured control OF the
Empire State Legislature which was to name
the electors for that year.
The New Jersey Legislature at one time
passed law Ior the choice of electors by
the people, but becoming afraid the election
was going the wrong way, assembled in
special session and appointed the electors.
South Carolina held to this system until