Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1873-06-26
Female Suffrage-Decision in the oas'
OF Miss Anthony.
c.NASpAIGuA, n. Y, June 10.


JUDGE HUNT, in his opinion III 'lie o'''o
of Susan B. Anthony, says: 3
"The right of voting or the priVllege VI
voting is right or privilege arising ulioet
the Constitution of the State, ana no1
the limited States. If the right belong
TO anv particular person it is because such
person is entitled to it as citizen OF the
State where he offers to exercise II, ana
not because of citizenship OF the Cnllea
states If the State of New York should
provide that no person should vote until
he had reached the age OF thlrty-ohe.
wears. or after he had reached the age OF
fifty, or that no person having gray hair'
or who had not possession OF all his limos
should be entitled to vote, l 90 not see
how it could be held to be violation OF
anv right derived or held under the Con
stitution of the United States. II the
Legislature of the State OF New YORK
should require higher qualification IN a
voter for Representative IN Congress
than is required for a voter for member
of the Assembly, this would, conceive,
be violation of right belonging TO one
as a citizen of the United States. mat
right is in relation to a Federal subject or
interest, and can be guaranteed by the
Federal Constitution The Inability OF
State to abridge the right of voting on &C
count of race, color, or previous condltion
of servitude, is Federal guaranty. It's
violation would be the denial OF FED
eral right; that is, a right belonging 10 a
claimant as citizen OF the United States.
This right herein exists by virtue OF tue
Fifteenth Amendment only. If the FIJI,
tenth Amendment had contained the word
"sex" the argument Of the defense would
have been potent She would have SAID
an attempt by State to deny the right OF
vote because one is of a 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 of servltude.
The Legislature of the State of New York
has seen fit to say that the franchise OF
voting shall be limited to the male sex.
In saying this, there is in my Judgment
no violation of the letter or of the spirit OF
the Fifteenth Amendment. This view is
assumed in the second section of the Four
tenth Amendment, which enacts that if
the right to vote for Federal officers is de-
MED bv any State to any of the male in
habitants Of such State, except for crime,
the basis of representation Of such State
shall be reduced in the proportion specl-
fed Not only does this section assume
that the right of male inhabitants to vote
was the especial object Of its protection,
but it assumes and admits the right OF a
State, Notwithstanding the existence OF
that clause under which the detendent
claims to the contrary, to deny to any of
the male inhabitants the right to vote
which is not allowed to other male inhabi-
tants. The regulation of the suffrage is
conceded to States as a States right. The
case of Mrs Myra Bradwell, decided at
the recent term Of the Supreme Court OF
the United States, sustains both these pc
sitions The Fifteenth Amendment gives
no right to a woman to vote, and vot-
ing by Miss Anthony was in violation OF
law. If she believed she had right to vote
does that release her from penalty? 1t is
argued that the knowledge referred to in
the act referred to relates to her knowl.
edge of the illegality of the act, and not to
the act of voting, for it said that she must
know that she voted. Two principles APP
ply here: First ignorance Of law excuses
| no one second every person is presumed
to understand and to intend the necessary
effects of his own acts. Miss Anthony
knew that she was a woman, and that the
Constitution Of the State prohibits her
from voting. She intended to violate that
provision, intended to test it perhaps, but
certainly intended to violate it. The nee
essary effect of her act was to violate it,
and then she is presumed te have intend
ed it. There was no ignorance Of any
fact, but all facts being known, she under
took to settle a principle in her own per
son. She takes the risk, and she ought
not to shrink from the consequences"
The court declined to submit the case
to the jury upon any question whatever,
and directed them to render verdict OF
guilty against the defendant.
Judge Selden, counsel for Miss Anthony,
then requested the clerk to poll the jury,
which request was denied by the court,
and a verdict of guilty was rendered.
The defendants counsel excepted to the
decree and action of the court, and in
sisted that upon the construction given to
the law by the decision there had been
only violation Of State law, and that
the United States Court had no jurisdic-
ton.
Sentence has not yet been pronounced,