Evening journal., 1892-10-12
MILLER MAKES THE PLEA
Fighting Michigan's Electoral
Law in the Supreme Court.
AN IMPORTANT POLITICAL CASE

II the Law Is Declared constitutional the
Vote Of the state ON the Presidency VIII
Undoubtedly BE Divided-New York Re.
publicans Nominate Judge Andrews.
WASHINGTON, Oct 12.-The United States
supreme court heard argument onthe case
appealed from the supreme court Of Michi.
gan involving the constitutionality of the
law providing for the election of presiden
tial electors i'm that state by districts. The
plaintiffs attorneys are n. NJ. Duilield and
4. A. Baker; the defendants, Attorney
General A. A. Ellis and Otto Kirchner. w.
H. II. Miller, attorney general of the United
States, made brief argument against the
validity of the state law
At the last session of the Michigan legis-
lature a law was passed dividing the state
into two districts, each Of which was to
elect a presidential elector, and each con
gressional district was also TO elect one elect
or. thus making up the quota of the state
The plaintiffs in this case are the Repub
lican nominees for electors. They applied
to Blacker, as secretary Of state, to issue
the notice of election usual under the old
law, alleging that the new law was uncon.
stitutonal lie refused, and they sued foi
writ of mandamus. The Michigan su.
preIne court overruled the petition, hold
ing the law to be valid and constitutional.
The ease then came to the supreme court
Of the United States.
NilIer's Argument.
The argument Of Attorney General Nil
Ter was unexpected He did not appear in
his official capacity, but as an ordinary at
torney at the request Of Mr. Duilleld. But
in view of the presidents suggestions, in
his message 70 congress last winter, about
the desirability OF uniform practice in the
matter OF choosing presidential electors
and In view OF the relations between the
president and his attorney general Mr.
Miller's remarks possess unusual sgnih
canoe In the course OF Mr. kirchncr's
argument he had insisted that the case
should have no standing la court foi
the reason that IL was the result of a con
spiracy by the Republican party TO drag
the supreme court Of the United States into
politics. Mr. Miller paid some attention &c
this assertion in his remarks He said in
part
81 am perfectly well aware that the peO
pie have been robbed 10y unjust apportion
ment 10y the party TO which ! belong AZ
well as by the party TO which am opposed,
and it is high time that the courts should,
once for all. say 20 the WORTHLESS. 1t Is just
as much larceny TO steal political right
as it is TO steal private property Hence J
say that If this cnse is here ia such a way
as that the court may properly take hold
of IT, il is not only the duty but il seems tc
me the highest opportunity for the court C.
serve the country and help to preserve its
institutions.
Now, / want 70 call attention to the
fact that it was the purpose of the trainers
of the constitution that in the election of
president the states should act and should
be represented as states; that there was a
purpose to maintain the dual character OF
the government i'm that regard, and that
this is provision for state action and that
Il was done on purpose. That It was de
signed that the states should act appear.
most clearly I'm what Immediately follow,
in the section OF the original constitution
and the section Of the twelfth amendment
having reference 90 this matter.
after providing for the canvassingof the
votes and the declaration Of the result, il
then provides for the case where there is n,
election by an elec, on by the house of rep
resentatives, and how2 by the representa-
tives OF distrcts2 No, but each state shal
have one vote.
at is state action not only in the origna
provision of the constitution but the SAM
provision is carried into the Twelfth amend
ment showing that the convention not onl,
believed they had provided in the orgina
constitution for state action, but when the
come to amend the constitution In tn
Twelfth amendment the same provision /
g HIs..f &.
votes shall be taken by states, the repr,
scntation from each state having one vote
To Wipe Out the states.
"Does that look rs If It were the purpos
to wipe out the states and in the languag
of the political platform of twenty yeal
ago remit the question 20 congression,
districts'i Ii WAS clearly the purpose /
maintain and preserve state action Thi
as has already been said here, Is pow,
granted TO the state 20 act the manner
action to be designated by the Legislature
1t is not grant TO the legislature of II
power; it is a grant Of the power to Il
state, the legislature simply TO regulate q
manner Of the execution of the power
Question boy Justice Gay-Do You fin
Mr. Miller, that while the district systo
Of choosing electors prevailed in some stat
it was challenged at any time as being D
yond the power Of the legislatures
Mr. Miher-My understanding Is n
that the question was never raised. b
that it was simply taken by consent, al
understood e. was stated when Mr. Dl
field was on his feet there was but @
election which would have been at
affected by the decision OF this questi
one way or the other One further su
gestion; This is "A power granted 10y {
national constitution 10 the state; {
state has no power TO delegate n
power; the state must exercise that pow
itself Il may do il by agent, but il mn
be the agent of the whole state. Il cam
take the power and divide it up into fo
teen parts and say this fraction of the p
pie may exercise this part and that fracti
of the people another part. IL must act
its agent, but cannot delegate a power
must exercise it all itself IL was sugg,
ed here that this court could not decide t
question, because somebody else might
dertake to decide it afterward and dis
gard it. That sort Of argument would I
vent this court deciding any question
any case upon which another departm
OF the government might be called OF
act.
That Ballot Problem Solved.