The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1873-08-15
SUSAN b. ANTHoNY's VOTING.
the, Aeslon1 OF Judge Hunt in tho Case

A dispatch from Canandaigua,
New York, under date of the 18th
instant says that in his opinion,
Judge Hunt argued as follows:
The right of voting, or the privilege
Of voting, is a right or privilege aris-
ing under the constitution of the
State, and not of the United States.
If the right belongs to any particular
person. it is because such person is
entitled to it as a citizen Of the State,
where he offers to exercise it, and not
because of citizenship Of the Uuited
States. If the State of New York
should provide that no person should
vote until he had reached the age OF
thirty-one years, or after he had
reached the age Of fifty, or that no
person having gray hair, or who had
not possession of all his limbs should
be entitled to vote, l do not see how
it could be held to be a violation OF
any right derived or held under the
constitution Of the United States.
If the legislature Of the State Of New
York should require higher qualiti-
cation in the voter for representative
in Congress that is required for a
voter for member Of the Assembly,
this would, conceive, be a violation
of a right belonging to one as a citi-
zen of the United States. That right
is in relation to a federal subject or
interest, and can be guaranteed by
the federal constitution, The inabil-
ity Of State to abridge the right of
voting on account of race, color, or
previous condition Of servitude, is a
federal guaranty. Its violations
would be the denial of federal right
that is, right belonging to the
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
it was an attempt by a State to deny
the right to vote, because one is of a
particular sex, and is expressly pro-
hibited by that amendment. The
amendment, however, does not con-
tain that word. It is limited to race,
color, or previous condition Of servi-
tude. The legislature of the State
of New York has seen fit to say that
the franchise of voting shall be limit
ed to the male sex. In saying this,
there is, in my judgment, no VIOLA
ton of the latter or Of the spirit Of
the fourteenth amendment. This
view is assumed in the second section
Of the fourteenth amendment, which
enacts that if any right to vote for
federal officers is denied by any State
to any of the male inhabitants of
such State, except for crime, the
basis of representation Of such State
shall be reduced in the proportion
specified. Not only does this section
assume that the right Of the male in
habitants to vote was the especial
object Of its protection, but it assumes
and admits the right Of a State, not
withstanding the existence of that
clause, under which the defendant
claims to the contrary, to deny to
any Of the male inhabitants the right
to vote which is allowed to other
male inhabitants. The regulation Of
the suffrage is conceded to the States
as States right. The case of Myra
Bradwell, decided at the recent term
Of the Supreme Court Of the United
States sustaihs both of these po-
sitions. 9
The fourteenth amendment gives
no right to a woman to vote, and the
voting by Miss Anthony was in vio-
lation of the law. II she believed she
had a right to vote, does that relieve
her from the penalty 1t is acknowl-
edged that the knowledge referred
to in the act referred to relates to her
knowledge Of illegality Of the act,
and not to the act of voting, for it
said that she must know that she
voted. Two principles apply here;
First The ignorance of the law
excuses no one.
Second Every one is presumed to
understand and to intend the neces-
sary effects of his own acts.
Miss Anthony knew that she was q
woman, and that the constitution Of
this State prohibits her from voting.
She intended to violate that provision;
intended to test it perhaps, but GER
tainly intended to violate it. The
necessary effect of her act was to
violate it, aud then she is presumed
to have intended it. There was no
ignorance Of any fact, but all the
facts being known she undertook TO
settle a principle in her own person.
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 de-
MED BY Che court, and o verdict Of
guilty was rendered.
The defendant's counsel excepted
to the decree and action Of the court,
and insisted that upon the ov''--pc-.
ton given 10
there b.
State
CO.