Iowa voter. [volume] (Knoxville, Iowa) 1867-1874, 1873-07-03
CASASpAIcuA, n. Y, June is.

CAxASpAIcuA, y. Y, June is.
Judge Hunt, in his opinion in the case
of Susan b. Anthony, says:
The right of voting or the privilege OF
voting is right or privilege arising under
the Constitution of the State, and not OF
the United States If the right belongs
Ia suy particular person il is because such
person is entitled 10 il as citizen of the
State where he offers TO exercise ii, and
no. because of citizenship of the United
States If the State of New York should
provide that no person should vote until
he had reached the age OF thirty-one
wears, or after he had reached the age of
fifty, ar that no person having gray hair,
or who had not possession of all his limbs
should be entitled TO vote, | do not see
how /, could be held TO be a violation Of
any right derived or held under the Con-
ssitutiun of the United States. If the
legislature of the State of New York
should require higher qualification in a
voter for representative in Congress
that is required for a voter for a member
Of the Assembly, this would, l conceive,
be violation Of a right belonging to one
As a citizen of the United States. That
right is in relation 10 Federal subject or
interest, and can be guaranteed by the
Federal Constitution. The inability of a
State 10 abridge the right Of voting on
account of race, color, or previous con-
ditiou of seryitude, is a Federal guaranty
Its violation would be the denial of a
Federal right; that is, right belonging to
a claimant as citizen of the United
States. This right herein exists by virtue
OF The Fifteenth Amendment only. If the
Fifteenth Amendment had contained the
word sex" the argument of the defense
would have been potent She would have
said an attempt by aState to deny the right
O; 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 servitude.
The Legislature of the State of New York
has seen 1T TO say that the franchise OF
voting shall be limited to the male sex.
In saving 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
ihe right TO vote for Federal officers is de-
MED By any State 10 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 speci-
fed Not only does this section assume
that the right Of male inhabitants to vote
was the especial object of its protection,
but il assumes and admits the right of a
State. notwithstanding the existence OF
that clause under which the defendant
claims 10 The contrary, 10 deny TO any OF
the male inhabitants the right 10 vote
which is allowed 10 other male inhabi-
tants The regulation of the suffrage Is
conceded TO States as States right. The
case Of Mrs. Myra Bradwell, decided al
the recent term Of the Supreme Court OF
the United States. susi2ins both these po-
sitions. The Fifteenth Amendment gives
no right 70 q woman To vote, and voting by
Miss Anthony was In violation OF law Ii
she believed she had right To vote does
that relieve her from penalty, Ii IL argu-
cd that the knowledge referred IN in the
act referred 10 relates TO her knowledge Of
the illegality OF the act, and not 10 the act
Of voting, for !, said that she must know
that she voted Two principles apply
here: First, ignorance Of law excuses no
one; second, every person Is presumed to
understand and 10 intend the necessary
effects Of his own acts Miss Anthony
knew tina, she WIS 8 woman, and that the
Constitution Of the State prohibits her
from voting. She intended TO violate that
provision. intended to test IL perhaps. but
certainly intended 10 violate it. The nee
essary effect Of her act was to violate it
and then she is presumed to have intend
| ed IL 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 SeldeD, counsel for Miss Anthc
ny, then requested the clerk to poll the
jury, which request was denied by thu
Court, and verdict Of guilty was render
ed.
The defendants counsel excepted to tn,
decree and action of the Court, and in
sisted that upon the construction given Il
the law by the decision there had beer
only q violation Of State law, and tina
the United States Court had no jurisdic
ton.
4