The examiner., 1886-08-14
snts to all, prevail x

W prevail
A TEST CASE
Some time since, Mr.. Hamilton Wilcox.
New York lawyer, after thorough myes-
tlgatIon declared that the women of that
state had constitutional right TO the
elective franchise. 1t was said that he
could not find respectable LAWYER to ac-
qulesce in that opinion. Thereupon he
interviewed large number of eminent
lawyers, who, almost unanimously came to
the conclusion that the constitution of the
State did not deprive women of suffrage.
But constitution, law, or precedent, pre-
SCENTS but small defence against wrong and
injustice when sustained by custom and
prejudice. Some years ago, in Rochester.
N. Y, which is the home of Susan B.
Anthony, she with fourteen of the most
respectable women in the city, having been
Informed by the best legal authorities in
the State that under the 18th and 18th
amendments, women had the right to vote,
they registered and voted.
As profound LAWYER as Benz. r. RufIer
and many others like him hold that women
have a right under the constitution to vote.
But custom and prejudice were against it,
and the inspectors of election. the register
and all the ladies were arrested, by q, s.
Commissioner, and were tried by Justice
HUNT OF the Supreme Court of the u. S.
This seemed most fragrant outrage upon
states rights, but the whole trial was the
most scandalous outrage upon all law and
justice that has been perpetrated since the
days of Judge Jeffreys of England.
1t was agreed that Miss Anthony should
be tried and the other ladies would abide
by the verdict in her case as for their own.
The Judge knew that no jury could be Sc
lected in that county that would convict
Miss Anthony, and they changed the venue
to another county.
Judge Henry r. Selden, the most emin-
ent jurist in the State, testified that he
told Miss Anthony she had legal RIGHT TO
vote. that he believed she had, that she
voted in good faith. No charge of fraud
was alleged, and no point was made except
That she was woman and knew she
was" which seemed to constitute the
crime. Had her brother under the same
done the same thing, his act
would have been not only innocent but
laudable. The crime therefore was not in
the act done, but in the sex of the person
that did it; really making it crime to be
a woman. No greater absurdity or inius-
lice can be presented to the human mind.
than that OF rewarding men and Furnishing
women for the same act, without giving
women any voice in the matter.
But Judge Hunt had prejudged her case.
and written his opinion against her before
ne came to the court, or heard the evil
1ence or the arguments in her favor He
refused to permit her council to add ess the
Jury in her behalf, refused the request of
1er council that the jury be polled, aid di-
'ected the clerk to enter a verdict Of guilty
without consulting the jury, who AFTER
wards said that they were for acquittal. but
he judge would not let them deliver their
verdict. He sentenced her to pay fine of
,De hundred dollars
LII 1t had been man WHO was being tried
or any Offence. and the Judge should have
YET at naught and violated every usage and
orm of law as did Justice Hunt. he would
AVE been impeaehed and arranged for
high crimes and misdemeanors in office
SUI as the victim was only VIZ man. it
vas considered good joke; and some sf
he metropolitan Journals alluded to it as
The funny case of Miss Anthony.''