The new Northwest. [volume] (Portland, Or.) 1871-1887, 1874-05-29
TIE CRIME OF VOTING.


count of the trial Of Susan B. Anthony
on the charge of illegal voting in the
Presidential election in 1872, and also
the trial Of the Inspectors OF Election by
whom her vote was received.
A summary of the matter is given in
the preface, and is substantially thus:
AT the election in November 1872,
Susan B. Anthony, and several other
women, offered their votes to the Inspec-
tors of Election, claiming the right to
vote as among the privileges and immu-
mites secured to them as citizens by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Consti-
tuition Of the United States.
For this act the women, fourteen in
lumber, were arrested and held to bail,
and indictments were found against
them severally, charging them with. the
ofense of "knowingly voting without
having a lawful right to vote"
The three Inspectors were jointly in
dicted "for having knowingly and will
fully received the votes of persons not
entitled TO vote"
or these Inspectors one was averse to
receiving the votes, and against his dis
sent they were received and deposited
in the baIlot-box.
or the women voters Miss Anthony
only was brought to trial.
The case was heard before the United
States Circuit Court, for the Northern
District OF New York at Canandaigua in
June, 1873, Hon. Ward Hunt presid-
ing. 1t was here proved that before Of
fering her vote Miss Anthony was ad-
vised by her cousel that she had right
to vote, and at the time of voting she
had 10 doubt that she was entitled so to
do.
1t was claimed in her behalf:
First-That she was legally entitled
to vote.
Second-That if she was not so enti-
tied, but voted in good faith, in the be-
lief that it was her right, she was guilty
Of no crime.
Third-She did vote in such good faith
and with such belief.
The Court held that the defendant had
no right to vote, that good faith consti-
tuted no defense-that there was moth
ing in the case for the jury to decide,
and directed them to find verdict of
guilty. This verdict was entered by the
clerk as directed by the Court, without
any express assent or dissent on the part
Of the jury.
A fine of 800 and costs was imposed I
upon the defendant.
Miss Anthony insists that in these
proceedings the fundamental principle
Of criminal law, that no person can be a
criminal unless the mind be so-that an
honest mistake is not crime, has been
disregarded; that she has been denied
the right of trial by jury, the jury hav-
ing no voice in her conviction; that she
has been denied her right to hear the
response of every juror to the question
whether he did or did not assent to the
verdict which the Court directed the
clerk to enter.
The trial of the Inspectors followed.
and all were convicted, the Court hold
ing, as in the previous case, that good
faith on the their part was not protee-
tion.
These were fined each SOS and costs.
The Inspector who was opposed to re-
ceiving the votes is at a loss TO know
how he could have avoided the penalty,
inasmuch as he did all in his power to
have the votes rejected, without throt-
Ting his co-inspectors and forcing them
to desist from receiving them. He is of
the opinion that by the ruling of the
Court he would have been equally guilty
had he tried his strength in that direc-
ton and failed Of success.
From the very lengthy charge against
Miss Anthony we quote the following:
THAT Susan B. Anthony, Of Rochester
with force and aims, etc, did knowingly,
wrongfully and unIawfully vote for
/ Representative to the Congress of the
United States for the State of New York
at large and for like Representative for
the twenty-ninth Congressional District
without having n lawful right to vote
(the said Susan b. Anthony being then
and there a person of the female SEX
contrary TO the Statute aud against the
peace and dignity Of the United States of
America"
Could our readers each and all have an
opportunity Of reading for themselves
the argument OF Judge Selden, the de-
fendant's counsel, We are sure that they
would agree with us that it is rs logical
as unanswerable.
Had We space We would gladly give
the entire argument to our readers, but
its length preclqdes the possibility of
this, and we hope that many may be
fortunate enough to obtain the pam
phlet containing it.
Neither silenced nor vanquished was
our plucky Susan, bat Thus responded
to the unjust decree Of his Honor Judge
Hunt:
"May II please yoUr Honor shall
never pay dollar OF your unjust pen
atty. All the stock In trade that pos
sess is a $4,000 debt incurred by pub
fishing my paper, The Revolution, four
years ago, the sole object which was to
educate all women to do precisely as
have done, rebel against your unjust,
man-made, unconstitutional laws. They
tax, fine, imprison and hang women