Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1873-07-02
hould REQUIRE HIGHER qualification in q

should require higher qualification in a
voter for Representative in Congress
than il required for a voter for a member
of the Assembly, this would, conceive,
be violation of right belonging to one
as a citizen of the United States. That
right is in relation to Federal subject or
interest, and can be guaranteed by the
Federal Constitution. The inability of a
State to abridge the right of voting on &C
count of race, color, or previous condition
of servitude, is a Federal guaranty Its
violation would be the denial of a Fed
eral right; that is, a right belonging to a
claimant as citizen of the United States
This right herein exists by virtue of the
Fifteenth Amendment only. If the Fiji
teenth 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 servitude
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
the Fifteenth Amendment. This view is
assumed in the second section of the Four
teenth Amendment, which enacts that if
the right to vote for Federal officers is de-
MED by 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 speci
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 defendent
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 po-
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 Illegally of the act, and not to
the act of voting, for it said that she must
know that she voted. Two principles ap-
plyhere First, ignorance of law excuses
income; second, every person is presumed
to understand and to intend the necessary
effects of his own acts. Miss Anthony
knew that she was 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 to. have intend
ed lit There was. no ignorance of any
factbut all facts being known, she under
took to. settle a principle in her own per
son. She takes the risk, and she ought
MOTTO shrink from the consequences."
The court declined to submit the case
to the jury upon any question whatever,
andaeirected 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 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 iurisdic-