The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1873-06-19
TIE CASE OF SUSAN B. AN.
~ THONY.

i Privilege conferred by the states
and not By the Federal ConStttu'
tion.
CAMANDAd1A, N. Y, June 19-JudgG
Hunt In his opinion in the case Of Susan
B. Anthony, says the right OF voting OF
the privilege Of voting Is u right or priVil
ege arising under the constitution Of the
Slate and not Of the United States. II the
right belongs 10 any particular person 1t iG
because such persons b entitled 70 1t as q
4 citizen Of the State where he oherB 70 exer'
else It and not Lecause Of citizenShip Of the
United States. II the State Of New York
should provide that no person should
vote until he had reached the age Of II
years or after he had reached the age oI
so, or that no person having gray hair, OF
who had not possessession tall his limbs
should be entitled 10 vote. ! do not see
how It could be held TO be violation Oi
any right derived or held under the Con-
stitution OF the United States II the Legis'
lature OF New York should require q
higher grade in voter for representative
in Congress than Is required for a voter
for member of the Assembly, this would,
l conceive, be q violation Of right be-
longing 10 one as a citizen of the United
States. That right b In relation to a fed
eral subject or interest, and can be guar
anteed by the federal Constitution. The
inability Of State 10 abridge the right Of
voting on account ot race, color or preVi-
ous condition OF serVitude, Is q federal
guaranty. It's violation would be denial
Of federal right that, is right belonging
TO q claimant US citizen OF the
United States This right herein exists
by virtue OF the 18th amendment. Only
| the 18th amendment had contained the
word "sex," tho argument OF tho defense
would have been potent, She would have
said an attempt BY State TO deny the
light 10 vote because one is OF u
particular sex is expressly prohibi-
ted by that amendment The amend,
ment, however, does not contain that
word. It Is limited TO race, COLOR
or previous condition Of servitude.7 The
Legislature OF the State OF New York
has seen fit 10 say that the franchise oi
voting shall be limited TO the male sex.
In saying this there is, In my judgment,
no violation Of letter or Of spirit OF
the 18th amendment This view
is assumed in the second section 6t the
l4lh amendment which enscts, that If
the right to vote fol. federal
officers is denied by. any State
to any OF the male Inhabitants. Of
such State, except for ,crime, the basis
OF the representation Of such State shall
be reduced in the proportion specified.
Not only does this section assume that
the right oil male inhabitants to vote was
the especial object of Its protection, but 1t
assumes and admits tho right Of State,
Notwithstanding the existence Of that
clause under which the defendants claim
to the contrary, to deny TO any ol the
male inhabitants the right 70 vote which
is allowed TO the other male inhabitants.
The regulation of the suffrage is COnCed.
ed to the States as a States rights, tho
case Of Mira Bradwell, decided ut re.
cent term Of the Supreme Court OF the
United States suStains both Of these posi-.
tions. The 14th amendment gives no
right to woman to vote, and the, voting
OF Miss Anthony was In violation ol
the law. II she believed she had q
right to vote does that release
her from the penaltyV 1t is argued that
the knowledge referred to in the act, re.
lates to her knowledge Of the illegallly OF
the act and not 10 the act OF voting, for
It says that she must know that she voted
Two principles apply here; first, ignor-
ance OF the law excuses no one, second,
every person Is presumed 10 understand,
and 10 intend the necessary effects Of his
own acts. Miss Anthony knew that she
Wss q woman, and that the constitution
OF this State prohibits q woman's voting
She intended TO violate that provision In.
tended 10 test It perhaps, but certainly In.
tended to violateik The necessary effect
of her act was to violate 1t and then she is
presumed 10 have intended It. There
was no ignorance Of any fact but all facts
being known she undertook 10 settle
principle in her own person. She takes
risks and she ought not to shrink from
tho consequences. ~
The Court declined to submit the case
10 the jury upon any question whatever,
and directed, them 70 rendera verdict OF
guilty against tho defendant. ~
Judge Seldom, counsel Tor Miss An
thony then requested the Clerk to poll the
jury, which request was denied by the
Court, and q verdict Of guilty was render.
ed. Tho defendants counsel excepted
the decree and action Of the Court, and In.
sisted that upon the construction given the
law by the, decision, that hare had been
only q violation Of the State lGW and that
the us. Court had no Jurisdiction. The
sentence has not yet been pronounced.
CANARDkaUA, June 18y-At 2P. ".
to-day, the case, Of the United States
against Jones, MRrsh and Ball, inspectors
Of elections, whoregistefed the names and
received the votes Of Miss anthony and
her co.delendGnts, was put on trial. The
proof on the part OF the prosecution was
similar to that In the case Of Miss Antho.
ny. The defence proved the good faith
OF the parties accused, In receiving the
votes and rested. The case was argued
on the part oi tho defence by Van Voor.
HES, of Rochester. At tho close Of his
argument the defendants counsel asked
to be permitted TO address the Jury In
their behalf, which request was refused
by the court. he then asked the court TO
charge the jury that II they believed that
the defendants acted honestly and &C.
cordinE to their best Judgement, and had
only erred in the judgment that they
they should be acquitted. This the Court
refused 10 do. Judge Hunt then an
nounced his decision, Overfuling the de-
fence, and stated that instead Of ordering
d verdict OF guilty, as he did In the case
Of Miss Anthony, he would submit the
case to the Jury, with instructions that
there was no justification for the act, and
that in effect tney were all guilty, and
stated 10 the Jury that they could agree
in their place, or reliIe for dellberation.
The jury choose the latter, and retired.
The Court then took a recess Of half an
hour, ut the expiration Of which the Jury
came In and said that they had not agreed.
They were sent out again with inStruc-