Year: 1873

instruction OF the court the jury in the case


of Susan B. Anthony, indicted for voting in
violation of the law, returned verdict of
guilty. The court refused to poll the jury


Judge Hunt in his opinion says the right


of voting or the privilege of voting is


right or privilege arising under the consti-


tuition of the State, aud not Of the United


States. If the right belongs to any parti-


cular person, it Is because such person is


entitled to it as citizen of tho State where


he offers to exercise it, ard 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 81 years, or after he had reached


the age of so, or that no person having gray


hair, or who had not the possession of all


his limbs should be entitled to vote, do


not see how it could be held to violate any


right derived or held under the constitution


of the United States. If the Legislature


of the State of New York should require


higher qualification in the voter for re-


preventative IN Congress than is required


for the voter for member of the Assem-


bly,, this would, conceive, beG violation of


the right belonging to one as citizen OF


the United Ststes. That right is in relation


to federal subject or interest, and can be


guaranteed by the federal constitution. The


inability of State to abridge the right


of voting on account of race, color


or previous condition, is a federal


guaranty. Its violation would be the de-


MAJ of federal right, that is right be-


longing to the claimant as citizen of the


United States. This right herein exists by


virtue of the 18th amendment only. If the


18th amendment had contained the word


'tsex," the argument of the defense would
have been patent. She would have said an


attempt by a State to deny the right to


vote because one is of particular sex is
expressly prohibited by this amendment.
The amendment, however, does not con-


tain that word. 1t is limited to 'traee,
color and previous condition" The Leg
islsture 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 spirit of the 18th amendment.
This view is assumed in the % section of
the 18th amendment, which enacts that if
the right to vote for Federal officers is de-
MED by any State o any male inhabitant of
such State, except for crime, the basis OF
representation of such State shall be re-
duced in the proportion specified. Not
only does this section assume that the right
of the mae inhabitants TO vote was the
especial object of its protection, but it as
sumes and admits the right of the State
Notwithstanding the existence of that clause
under which the defendant claims to the
contrary-to deny to any Of the male in
habitants the right to vote, which is allow
e6 to other mails inha bitants. The regulation
of suffrage is conceded to the States as 8
,io 80 IF duran Had ot
the recent term of the Supreme Court of the |
United States, sustains both these positions.
The 14th amendment gives no right to 3
woman to vote, and the voting by Miss An
thony was in violation of law.


If she believed she had the right 10 vote,
does that release her from the penalty? 1t |
is argued that the penalty referred to in the
act, relates TO her knowledge of the illegal
ity of the act, MOTTO the act of voting; for it
is said that she must know that she voted.
Two principles apply here. First, ignorance
of the law excuses no one. Second, every
person is presumed to understand and to
intend the necessary effects of his OWE
acts. Miss Anthony knew she was wo-
man, and that the Constitution OF the State
prohibits 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 ali the facts being known she |
undertook to settle a principle in her own |
person She takes the risk and she ought |
not to shrink from the consequences.


The court decliued to submit the case to |
the juri upon any question Whatever, and |
desired them to render a verdict of guilty |
against the defendant.


Judge Selden, counsel for Miss Anthony,
then requested the Clerk TO poll the jury,
which request was denied by the Coutt,
and a verdict of guilty rendered De
fendant's counsel excepted to the decree
and action of the Court, and insisted that
upon the construc ion given to the law by
the decision there had been only violation
of State law, and the United States Court
rad no jurisdiction. Sentence has not yet
been pronounced.


A Side Issue.


At P. NJ. the case of the United States
against Jones, Marsh and Hail. Inspectors of
Election, who registered the names and re-
corded the votes of Miss Anthony and her
co-defendsnGs, was placed on trial. The
proof Oh the part Of the prosecution is SINH
AaI W llaS III LILO OooO VI A4Gu AhC
defense proved the good faith of the parties
accused in receiving the votes, and the case
was argued on the part of the defendants,
by Van Voorhies, of Rochester, who asked
the Court TO charge the jury that if they.
believed that the defendants acted honestly
and according to their best judgment and
only erred in judgment, they should be &C
quilted.


This the court refused. The Judge said
he would not direct verdict of guilty as he
did in the case of Miss Anthony, but would
submit the case to the jury with instruc-
tions that there was no justification fol the
act, and that in effect they were all guilty,
and stated that the jury could agree in their
places or retire for elaboration.


The jHry chose the latter, and took a
recess of half an hour, at the expiration of
which they came in and said that they had
not agreed. They were sent out again


with instructions that unless they agreed
within few minutes, the court viii ad-