Year: 1873

Of Susan B. Anthony, says:


"The right of voting or the privilege OF
voting is a right or privilege arising
under the Constitution of the State, and
not of the United States. If the right be-
longs to any particular person if is be-
cause such person is entitled to it as a citi-
zen of the State where he offers to eXer
else it, and not because of citizenship OF
the United 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 qualifi-
cations in voter for Representative in
Congress than is required for voter for
member Of the Assembly this would, l
conceive, be violation of right belong
ing to one as citizen of the United States.
That right is in relation to Federal
subject or interest, and can be guaranteed
py the Federal Constitution. The inabil-
ity of State to abridge the right of vot-
ing on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude is a Federal guar
antv. Its violation would be the denial
of Federal right. That is, a right be-
longing to a claimant as citizen OF the
United States. This right herein exists
by virtue of the Fifteenth Amend
mend only. IF the Fifteenth Amend
ment had contained the word "sex"
the argument of the defense would
have been potent. She would have said
an attempt by State to deny the right OF
vote because one is of a particular sex is
expressly prohibited by that amendment.
The amendment, however, does not con-
tain that word. It is limited to race,
color or previous condition of servitude.
The Legislature of the State of New York
has seen fit to say that the franchise OF
voting shall be limited to the male sex.
In saying this, there is in my judgment
no violation of the letter or of the spiritZof
the Fifteenth Amendment This view is
assumed in the second section of the
Fourteenth Amendment, which enacts
that if the right to vote for Federal OIL
GERS 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 as
sumo that the right of male inhabitants to

ton, but it assumes and admits the right
of State, notwithstanding 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 lnhab1-
tants The regulation of the suffrage is
conceded to States as States right. The
case of Mrs. Myra Bradwell, decided at
the recent term Of the Supreme Court OF
the United States, sustains both these po-
sitions. The Fifteenth Amendment gives
no right to a woman to vote, and voting by
Miss Anthony was in violation of law. Ii
she believed she had right to vote does
that release her from penalty? 1t is
argued that the knowledge referred to in
the act referred to relates to her knowl-
edge of the illegality of the act, and not
to the act of voting, for it said that she
must know that she voted. Two princl-
pies apply here: First, ignorance OF law
excuses no one; second, every person is
presumed to understand and to intend the
necessary effects of his own acts. Miss
Anthony knew that she was woman, ana
that the Constitution of the State pro-
hibits her from voting. She intended to
violate that provision, intended to test it
perhaps. but certainly intended to violate
it. The necessary effect of her act was to
violate it, and then she is presumed to
have intended it. There was no ignorance
of any fact, but al facts being known she
undertook to settle 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, ana
directed them to render verdict OF guilty
against the defendant.


Judge Selden, counsel for Miss An
thony, then requested the clerk to poll the
iurv. which request was denied by the
Court, and verdict of guilty was render
ed.


The defendants counsel excepted to the
decree and action of the Court, and insist
ed that upon the construction given to the
law nv the decision there had been only
violation of a State law, and that the
United States Court had no jurisdiction.


A notable will was that left by the
late Dudley P. Rogers, of Salem, Mass
First he bequeathed $4,000 to the Salem
Fraternitv.' the income to be used IN pro-
yiding such innocent amusements as lts
officers ''may consider best calculated TO
attract and draw from the streets OF Salem
the Young men and women who have no
place to turn to in the evening for amuse-
ment but the streets'' Then the sum OF
$4,000 was left in trust, its income to De
devoted to the support of certain taVorite
animals of his as long as they live, ana al
| their death to be added to the other fund.
| The copper industry of Lake Superior
provides a livelihood for 5000 persons.