The new Northwest. [volume] (Portland, Or.) 1871-1887, 1873-10-03

REPLY TO. CORRESPONDENTS OF THE YoSKERs,
y. =. ">rATEsNAS," BY MRS. CLENENCE :.
Miss Anthony, as a law-abiding citi-
zen, took. good care to deliberate and
secure the best advice the country could
afford before voting. The very fact that
this was test question, rendered il i'm
! possible that she should have known il
was wrong TO vote, as charged by my
young friend. When arraigned for trial
she pleaded not guilty, and asked and
expected trial by a jury of her peers.
IL was not thought that the very con-
stitutiOn which guarantees every citi-
zen accused of crime an impartial trial
/ by jury, could be so perverted rs to deny
that right to the humblest, or so dis
torted as to utterly ignore the very
name and existence OF citiZen-so far as
women are concerned. But since Judge
! Taney's decision that, under the Consti-
tuition, "black men have no rights
which white men are bound to respect y
nothing emanating from that bench
ought to surprise us. Professional
duties permit me but little leisure Ol
opportunity; but by the aid of kind
providence, in the shape of a legal
friend, perhaps we may yet make the
case clear TO even Mr.. Thayer.
The principal point in the controversy
has been whether or not Judge Hunt
was right in adjudging Miss Anthony
guilty of the alleged crime of voting,
without any voluntary assent on the
part of the jury impanneled to try her.
stated in my address that the decis.
ion was illegal, and most fiagrant viO-
lation of constitutional right, viz: that
HnE -.
friend takes issue with me, and insists
that this arbitrary act of Judge Hunt is
right, and that / am wrong. This is 3
question of such magnitude, and so in
timately concerns the personal liberty
OF the Individual, that it becomes one o.
vital Importance TO every man, woman
and child throughout this land. If il
shock the nerves of my friend Hon
Stephen Thayer, Jr., that should crit
ieise Judge of the Supreme Court, 80
be it. must leave his nerves to the
soothing influence OF time and more
mature deliberation. Believing as / dc
l that dear friend, and an American
citizen, has been stricken down by 2
most cruel, arbitrary and unconstitu.
tiOnal act, termed a judicial trial,
shall certainly exercise my prerogativC
rs citizen TO speak If |. may not vote
and that without fear or favor of Mr.. r.
or Judge Hunt. The time has passed in
this country for the preparation of such
an outrage, and for placing q paddock
upon our lips, at the risk of being again
/ stigmatized by Mr.. T. rs exhibiting
myself as "utterly failing TO compre.
/ hend the simplest of the legal points in
this not intricate matter" / will pro-
1 ceed. And first it is proper that we
. Il. Naf- 4.
Our chart is the Constitution of the
/ United States. 1t says, Article 3, Sec
/ tion ,:
"The trial of all crimes, except in
cases of impeachment, shall be by .Jury.
| In all criminal prosecutions the accused
shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial by an impartial jury oi
| State and district wherein the crime
shall have been committed.
/ And to have the assistance Of counsel
for his defense"
The law under which she was tried
provides, that any person who shall
knowingly vote where they may not be
lawfully entitled to vote, or vote with.
out having a lawful right to vote, shall
be guilty Of crime, etc.
1t appeared on the trial: First-Thai
she was advised by one of the oldesI
and ablest judges in this State, Hon
Henry r. Selden, that she had {
legal right to vote. Second-It appeared
by the evidence of that judge, in the
presence of this court and jury, that hi
so advised, and that he gave such advic,
in good faith, believing that she haC
had such right. Third-It also appeared
that when she offered to vote, the ques
ton whether, as q lCODadli, she had ;
right to vote, was raised by the inspec
tors, and considered in her presence ant
they decided that she had right &
vote, and they received her vote accord
ingly.
At the close of the testimony the de
fendanps counsel insisted upon the fol
lowing propositions: First-That tin
defendant had u lawful right to vote
Second-That whether she had a Lawful
right to vote or not, if she honestly be
lieved that she had that right, and vote,
in good faith i'm that belief, she wa
! guilty of no crime. Third-That whel
she gave her vote she gave il in goo,
faith, believing that it was her right Il
do so.
: The defendants counsel insisted tha
the first and second propositions wer
, questions of law, and the third and las
was a question Of fact for the jury TO de
termine, and asked leave to address tn
Jury upon that question. This the cOuT
, declined to grant. The court then i'm
structed the clerk to take the verdict
and the clerk said, Gentlemen of tn
Jury, hearken to the verdict, as tn
] court hath recorded il, you say you fin
. the defendant guilty of the offens
chared. So say you ALL" No respOns
was made by the jury, either by word o
sign. They did not consult together il
= their seats or elsewhere. Neither @
them had spoken a word, nor had the,
been asked whether they agreed upo
their verdict. The defendants counse
then asked that the jury be polled, {. C.
= that each juror be asked separately an
distinctly whether this was his verdict
The court said, 'That cannot be al
lowed. Gentlemen of the jury, you ar
discharged" and they left the jury box
Now will Mr.. T. be kind enough [
l INFORM me at what stage of this astOund
q ing legal procedure the Jury came IN
\ The Constitution says that not Judc
J HUNT, not the Circuit Court of III
y United states, but The jury shall try
= lhese twelve men that sat I'm the iur
boX had nothing more to do with Mis-
4 Anthony trial than any twelve specta
I tors who may have happened to b
{ / present. If twelve wooden men had 81
5 in their places, the same result wouI
= have been obtained. There was noconcu
: renee of the jury. There was no voluT
h tary assent. 1t was "Hearken TO IN
e verdict as the Court has recorded il,
4 not, "Gentlemen Of the jury, what
: your verdict ?'' The trial, so far as
d may by legal fiction be called a jur
:, trial, was mere sham and pretens
o and n most gross and palpable violatio
t Of the constitutional provision abOy
!, quoted.