New-York tribune., 1873-06-19

OTICUt, :, -
eral States" Another privilege OF citizen Oh ''o
States saws Miller in the "slaughterhouse cases 10 W
demand the care and protection OF tine feuei"i ~,
ment on his life liberty. and property "ncn on 'no
seas or within the jurisdiction OF aioroisn XIV
The right 10 assemble and petition TOT recSS vi
anees the privilege OF the writ OF hapeas corpus ho
arc OF the citizen guaranteed by the Federal
Constitution.
now THE RIGHT OF VOTING ARISES
r,o ricbt of voting or the privilege of voting, Is
rt or prEilege arising under the Constitution OF the
state and not OF the United States II the right belongs
% any particular person. 1t is because such person Is
entitled TO 1t citizen of the State where no oilers to
exercise IT, and because OF citizenship OF the United
states II the State of NewYork should provide that
no person should vote until he had reached the OF
81 years. after he had reached the of 5O or that
no person having gray hair who had not the posses
sion OF MI his limbs. shod be entitled to vote do not
see how 1t could held TO be violation OF any right
derived held under the Constitution OF the United
states. He might say that such regulations were unjust
tyrannical, unfit for the regulation Of an intelligent
state; hut il rights OF citizen are thereby violated,
they OF that fundamental class derived from his po
sitiOn citizen of the State. aud not those limited
rights belonging TO him as citizen OF the United
States, and such was the decision In Car
field agt. ICaye. The United States rights
appertaining 70 this subject are those first
under article paragraph OF the United States Constr
tuition,
in Congress shall have the qualifications requisite for
electors Of the most branch Of the state Legs
lature and second. under the Fifteenth Amendment,
which provides that the right OF citizen of the united
States to vote shall be denied abridged by the
United States by State on account OF race Color
or reviOus condition of serytude IL the Legislature OF
the state OF NewYork should require higher qualihca
tiOn in voter for representative in congress Iha Is
required for a voter for member OF Assembly TINS
would conceive be violation Of right belonging to
one as citizen of the United States. That nght is IN
relation TO Federal subject OF interest and can De guar
anteed by the Federal Constitution The lnablty OF
State 70 abrdge the right OF voting on account OF race
color or previous condition of servtude is Federal
guaranty Its violation would be the denial OF Federal
ght-that is right belonging to the claimant as citl-
zen of the United States.
THE QUESTION OF SEX NOT TOUCHED BY THE FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENT.
The right herein exists by virtue OF the Fifteenth
Amendment. If the Fifteenth Amendment had con-
tanned the word "sex," the argument Of the defense
would have been potent She would have said an at
tempt 10y State deny the right to vote because one
is of particular sex is expressly prohibited by that
amendment. The amendment however, does not con-
tain that word. 1t is limited to race color or previous
condition servitude. The Legislature Of the state OF
NewYOrk has fit to say that the franchise OF voting
shall be limited to the male SEX In saving TINS, there
is in my Judgment violation Of the letter or OF the
Il
assumed in the second section OF the Fourteenth Amend
ment which enacts that the right 10 vote for Federal
officers denied by any State TO any OF the male nhaD
ants of such State except for crime the basis OF repre-
sentaton of such State shall be reduced in proportion
specified. Not only does this section assume that the
right male inhabitants TO vote was the especial object
! of its protection, but it assumes and ad-
nits the right Of a State, Notwithstanding the
existence Of that clause under which the defendant
claims the contrary, deny TO OF the male inhab
tants the right TO vote which is allowed to other male
inhabitants The regulation OF the suffrage is conceded
TO the States States right. The Of Myra Brad
we'll decided recent term Of the Supreme Court Of
the United States sustans both the positions above put
forth viz FIRST the rights referred to in the Four
teenth Amendment those belonging TO person as
Of the United States and as citizen OF state
and second that right Of the character involved here
is not connected with citizenship OF the United
States. Mrs Bradwell made application to be admitted
practice attorney and counselor at law, In the
OF Illinois. Her application was denied, and upon
appeal to the Supreme Of the United States IL
mere held that TO give force under the Fourteenth
Amendment the claim must bo OF right pertaining 10
citizenship of the United States and that the claim made
by her did within that class Of cases. Mr. JUS
tice Bradley and Mr.. Justice Field held that woman
was not entitled license to practice law 1t does
not appear that other judges passed upon that quos
MISS ANTHoNYs VIOLATION OF LAW.
m vote and the voting by Miss Anthony was in viola
tiop of law II she believed she had right to vote,
does that release her from the penalty 1t Is argued
that the knowledge referred to in the act referred to re-
ates to her knowledge of the egaty Of the act and
not TO the act Of voting for 1t is said that she must
know that she voted Two principles apply bere first L.
norance OF the law second, every per
son presumed understand and to intend the neces
sary effects OF his own Miss Anthony knew that she
was woman. and that the Constitution Of this State
prohibits her from voting She intended to violate that
proyison-intended to test it, perhaps but certainly in
tended TO violate it, The necessary effect of her act was
TO violate it, and then she Is presumed TO have intended
it, There Ignorance Of any fact but all the facts
being KNOWN she undertook TO settle principle in her
own person. She takes the risk and she ought not 10
shrink from the consequences. 1t is said that our au-
hores are cited to sustain the position that there can
be no crime unless there is culpaOle nten to render
one erimnally responsible vicious will must be pres
ent commits trespass on the land OF B, and
thinking and believing that he has right TO shoot an
intruder upon his premises kills the spot. Does BIS
misapprehenson of his rights Justify his acti Would
Judge be Justified charging the jury that If satisfied
that supposed he had right 10 shoot he was tust
fed and they should find q verdict Of not gultyi No
Judge would make such charge. To constitute crime
IL is true that there must be criminal INTENT but 1t Is
equally true that knowledge Of the facts Of the
case is always held to supply THIS intent An IN
tenonal killing bears with it evidence OF malice in law
desire promote the WeaTe OF Ine utCeabtu Dy
his translation to better world would be jusca-
tiOn Of the 10 committed by sane man. VINO
ever without justiabe cause Intentionally kills his
neighbour Is guilty OF a crime. The principle Is the
same in the before u.s. and IN all criminal cases
The precise question has been several times decided,
VIZ that one illegally voting was bound and was as
sumed to know the law (Hamton agt the People, 61th
OF Barbour p. 625 State ag BOset, 10Th OF lndel p.
396 State agt. Hart, 9th Jones, IL chap, p $50
Mcclure agt. State, Humphrey 81; 18TH OF Iowa Re
ports 400 No system Of criminal jurisprudence can be
sustained upon any other principle, Assuming that
Miss Anthony believed che had Tlg 10 vote mat TACT
constitutes defense If in truth she had not the right
She voluntarily gave which was illegal aud thus
IS subject 10 the penalty Of the law.
At the conclusion OF the opinion, Judge selden