LAWRENCE, Sept. 24, 1867. Committee on Address.

N. B.—Friends wishing tracts on the subject of equal rights, should address Equal Rights Office, 77 Massachusetts Street, Lawrence, Kansas.

THE HUTCHINSONS' KANSAS SUFFRAGE SONG.

Words By P. P. Fowler and J. W. H.

As sung at the meetings and concerts during ther grand campaign on the suffrage issue the season of 1867 in Kansas, and at the polls in Leavenworth, by the Tribe of John, on the day of election.

O, say what thrilling songs of fairies, Wafted o'er the Kansas prairies, Charm the ear while zephyrs speed 'em! Woman's pleading for her freedom.

CHORUS—Clear the way, the songs are floating; Clear the way, the world is noting; Prepare the way, the right promoting, And ballots, too, for woman's voting.

We frankly say to fathers, brothers, Husbands, too, and several others, We're bound to win our right of voting, Don't you hear the music floating?

We come to take with you our station, Brave defenders of the nation, And aim by noble, just endeavor To elevate our sex forever.

By this vote we'll rid our nation Of its vile intoxication. Can't get rum? Oh, what a pity! Dram-shops closed in every city.

Fear not, we'll darn each worthy stocking, Duly keep the cradle rocking, And beg you heed the words we utter, The ballot wins our bread and butter.

All hail, brave Kansas! first in duty, Yours, the meed of praise and beauty, You'll nobly crown your deeds of daring, Freedom to our sex declaring.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XXV.

TRIALS AND DECISIONS.

LETTER FROM MISS ANTHONY ANNOUNCING HER HAVING VOTED.

ROCHESTER, November 5, 1872.

DEAR MRS. STANTON: Well, I have been and gone and done it! positively voted the Republican ticket—straight—this A.M. at seven o'clock, and swore my vote in, at that; was registered on Friday and fifteen other women followed suit in this ward, then in sundry other wards some twenty or thirty women tried to register, but all save two were refused. All my three sisters voted—Rhoda De Garmo, too. Amy Post was rejected, and she will immediately bring action against the registrars; then another woman who was registered, but vote refused, will bring action for that—similar to the Washington action. Hon. Henry R. Selden will be our counsel; he has read up the law and all of our arguments, and is satisfied that we are right, and ditto Judge Samuel Selden, his elder brother. So we are in for a fine agitation in Rochester on this question.

I hope the morning telegrams will tell of many women all over the country trying to vote. It is splendid that without any concert of action so many should have moved here.

Thanks for the Hartford papers. What a magnificent meeting you had! Splendid climax of the campaign—the two ablest and most eloquent women on one platform and the Governor of the State by your side. I was with you in spirit that evening; the chairman of the Committee had both telegraphed and written me all about the arrangements.

Haven't we wedged ourselves into the work pretty fairly and fully, and now that the Republicans have taken our votes—for it is the Republican members of the board; the Democratic paper is out against us strong, and that scared the Democrats on the registry boards.

How I wish you were here to write up the funny things said and done. Rhoda De Garmo told them she wouldn't swear nor affirm, "but would tell them the truth," and they accepted that. When the Democrats said that my vote should not go in the box, one Republican said to the other, "What do you say, Marsh?" "I say put it in." "So do I," said Jones; "and we'll fight it out on this line if it takes all winter." Mary Hallowell was just here. She and Sarah Willis tried to register, but were refused; also Mrs. Mann, the Unitarian minister's wife, and Mary Curtis, sister of Catharine Stebbins. Not a jeer, not a word, not a look disrespectful has met a single woman.

If only now all the Woman Suffrage women would work to this end of enforcing the existing Constitutional supremacy of National law over State law, what strides we might make this very winter! But I'm awfully tired; for five days I have been on the constant run, but to splendid purpose; so all right. I hope you voted too.

Affectionately, SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

* * * * *

JUDGE SELDEN TO MISS ANTHONY.

ROCHESTER, November 27, 1872.

MISS ANTHONY—DEAR MADAM: The District Attorney says he can not attend to your case on any day but Friday. So it will be indispensable for you to be ready Friday morning, and I will do the best I can to attend to it.

I suppose the Commissioner will, as a matter of course, hold you for trial at the Circuit Court, whatever your rights may be in the matter.

In my opinion, however, the idea that you can be charged with a crime on account of voting, or offering to vote, when you honestly believed yourself to be a voter, is simply preposterous, whether your belief was right or wrong.

However, the learned (!) gentlemen engaged in this movement seem to suppose they can make a crime out of your honest deposit of your ballot, and perhaps they can find a respectable court or jury that will be of their opinion. If they do so I shall be greatly disappointed.

Yours, truly, H. R. SELDEN.

(Boston Transcript.)

The last work came on the New York Calender; a person is discovered to have voted who had no right to; this is believed to be the first case of the kind ever heard of in New York, and its heinousness is perhaps aggravated by the fact that the perpetrator is a woman, who, in the vigorous language of the Court, "must have known when she did it that she was a woman." We await in breathless suspense the impending sentence.

The Rochester Evening Express of Friday, May 23, 1873, under the heading of "An Amiable Consideration of Miss Anthony's Case," said: United States District Attorney Crowley is a gallant gentleman, as gallant indeed as District Attorneys can afford to be, but he confesses himself no match for Miss Anthony. That lady has stumped Monroe County in behalf of impartial suffrage, and it appears that the Government very prudently declines to give her case to the jury in this county. The fact is, it is morally certain that no jury could be obtained in Monroe that would convict the lady of wrongdoing in voting, while it is highly probable that four juries out of five would acquit her. It is understood, of course, that the Court and prosecuting officers are merely fulfilling their official functions in recognizing this departure from ordinary practice at the polls, but would feel as deeply astonished at a verdict of guilty as the general public. The District Attorney is fortunate in having as a contestant (defendant, he would professionally call her) in this friendly little duel, a lady who is the embodiment of American common sense, courage, and ability; and we are certain that after this tournament is adjourned he will accept, with his usual urbanity, the aid of ladies' ballots to lift him to some other place where his conceded abilities shall be more widely known.

The New York Commercial Advertiser, under the heading, "Miss Anthony and the Jury of her Peers," said: There is perplexity in the Northern District of New York. It was in that jurisdiction that Miss Susan B. Anthony and sundry "erring sisters" voted at the November election. For this they were arrested and indicted. The venue was laid in Monroe County and there the trial was to take place. Miss Anthony then proceeded to stump Monroe County and every town and village thereof, asking her bucolic hearers the solemn conundrum, "Is it a crime for a United States citizen to vote?" The answer is supposed generally to be in the negative, and so convincing is Sister Anthony's rhetoric regarded that it is supposed no jury can be found to convict her. Her case has gone to the jurymen of Monroe in her own persuasive pleadings before they are summoned. The District Attorney has, therefore, postponed the trial to another term of the Court, and changed the place thereof to Ontario County; whereupon the brave Susan takes the stump in Ontario, and personally makes known her woes and wants. It is a regular St. Anthony's dance she leads the District Attorney; and, in spite of winter cold or summer heat, she will carry her case from county to county precisely as fast as the venue is changed. One must rise very early in the morning to get the start of this active apostle of the sisterhood.

Rochester Democrat and Chronicle: If Miss Anthony has converted every man in Monroe County to her views of the Suffrage question, as the District Attorney intimates in his recent efforts to have her case adjourned, it is pretty good evidence—unless every man in Monroe County is a fool—that the lady has done no wrong. "Her case," remarks the Auburn Bulletin, "will probably be carried over to another term, and all she has to do is to canvass and convert another county. A shrewd woman that! Again we say, she ought to vote."

The Syracuse Standard said: Miss S. B. Anthony is sharp enough for a successful politician. She is under arrest in Rochester for voting illegally, and she is conducting her case in a way that beats even lawyers. She stumped the county of Monroe and spoke in every school district so powerfully that she has actually converted nearly the entire male population to the Woman Suffrage doctrine. The sentiment is so universal that the United States District Attorney dare not trust his case to a jury drawn from that county, and has changed the venue to Ontario County. Now Miss Anthony proposes to stump Ontario immediately, and has procured the services of Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, of Fayetteville, to assist her. By the time the case comes on Miss Anthony will have Ontario County converted to her doctrines.

The Rochester Union and Advertiser quoted the above and commented as follows: We give in another column to-day, from a legal friend, a communication which shows very clearly that Miss Anthony is engaged in a work that will be likely to bring her to grief. It is nothing more nor less than an attempt to corrupt the source of that justice, under law, which flows from trial by jury. Miss Anthony's case has passed from its gayest to its gravest character. United States Courts are not stages for the enactment of comedy or farce, and the promptness and decision of their judges in sentencing to prison culprits convicted before them shows that they are no respecters of persons.

SUSAN B. ANTHONY AS A CORRUPTIONIST.

To the Editors of the Union and Advertiser:

Gentlemen—I saw this morning with equal surprise and regret in the Democrat and Chronicle the following article:

"We understand that Miss Susan B. Anthony, in company with Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, intends to lecture through Ontario County. She is confident that by June 16th a jury of twelve men can not be found in that county who will render a verdict of guilty against the women who are to be tried for illegal voting at the last fall election."

I had learned from the same source that Miss Anthony had made such an effort in Monroe County, and it was stated elsewhere that her trial had been sent thence to Ontario County by reason of such efforts to persuade juries of the justice of her cause. I can scarcely credit these statements.

Reduced to simple terms, it is an attempt by public lectures and female influence, by an accused party so to affect jurors 'that a jury of twelve men can not be found in that county who will render a verdict of guilty.' If this may be a part of the administration of justice, then the United States Attorney may by similar or other means attempt beforehand to secure an opposite result; and the administration of justice is brought into contempt, and corruption has entered the jury-box.... There is a statute and common law offense known as embracery, which is defined to consist "in such practices as lead to affect the administration of justice, improperly working upon the minds of jurors." It seems clear, adds Russell in his Treatise on Laws and Misdemeanors, 'that any attempt whatever to corrupt or influence or instruct a jury in the cause beforehand, or any way incline them to be more favorable to the one side than the other, by money, letters, threats, or persuasions, EXCEPT ONLY by the strength of evidence and the arguments of the counsel in OPEN COURT AT THE TRIAL OF THE CAUSE, is a proper act of EMBRACERY, whether the jurors upon whom the attempt is made give any verdict or not, and whether the verdict given be true or false.' ... I trust no merely temporary excitement in respect to female suffrage will lead good citizens to sanction any attempt whatever to influence jurors out of Court, either before or during the trial of a cause. It is alike an insult to the juror and an imputation on our public virtue.

LEX. May 24, 1873.

[New York Sun, Saturday, January 4, 1873].

GOING TO JAIL FOR VOTING FOR GRANT.

The arrest of the fifteen women of Rochester, and the imprisonment of the renowned Miss Susan B. Anthony, for voting at the November election, afford a curious illustration of the extent to which the United States Government is stretching its hand in these matters. If these women violated any law at all by voting, it was clearly a statute of the State of New York, and that State might be safely left to to vindicate the majesty of its own laws. Is is only by an overstrained construction of the XIV. and XV. Amendments, that the National Government can force its long finger into the Rochester case at all.

But so it is. Eager to crowd in and regulate the elections at every poll In the Union, the power at Washington strikes down a whole State Government in Louisiana, and holds to bail a handful of women in New York. Nothing can escape its eye or elude its grasp. It can soar high; it can stoop low. It can enjoin a Governor in New Orleans; it can jug a woman in Rochester. Nothing is too big for it to grapple with; nothing is too small for it to meddle with.... By the by, we advise Miss Anthony not to go to jail. Perhaps she feels that she deserves some punishment for voting for General Grant, but it is a bailable offense. "Going to jail for the good of the cause" may do for poetry, but it becomes very prosaic when reduced to practice. Let Miss Anthony enter into bonds, adjust her spectacles, face her accusers, and argue her own case.

The Worcester Spy said: Miss Susan B. Anthony, whatever else she may be, is evidently of the right stuff for a reformer. Of all the woman suffragists she has the most courage and resource, and fights her own and her sisters' battle with the most wonderful energy, resolution, and hopefulness. It is well known that she is now under indictment for voting illegally in Rochester last November. Voting illegally in her case means simply voting, for it is held that women can not lawfully vote at all. She is to be tried soon, but in the meantime, while at large on bail, she has devoted her time to missionary work on behalf of woman suffrage, and has spoken, it is said, in almost every school district in Monroe County, where her trial would have been held in the natural course of things. She has argued her cause so well that almost all the male population of the county has been converted to her views on this subject. The District Attorney is afraid to trust the case to a jury from that county, and has obtained a change of venue to Ontario on the ground that a fair trial can not be had in Monroe.

Miss Anthony, rather cheered than discouraged by this unwilling testimony to the strength of her cause and her powers of persuasion, has made arrangements to canvass Ontario County as thoroughly as Monroe. As county lines do not inclose distinct varieties of the human race, it is fair to presume that the people of the former county will be as susceptible to argument and appeal, as those of the latter, and by the time the case comes on, an Ontario jury will be as little likely to convict as a Monroe jury is now supposed to be. Some foolish and bigoted people who edit newspapers, are complaining that Miss Anthony's proceedings are highly improper, inasmuch as they are intended to influence the decision of a cause pending in the courts. They even talk about contempt of court, and declare that Miss Anthony should be compelled to desist from making these invidious harangues. We suspect that the courts will not venture to interfere with this lady's speech-making tour, but will be of the opinion that she has the same right which other people, male or female, have to explain her political views, and make converts to them if she can. We have never known it claimed before that a person accused of an offense was thereby deprived of the common right of free speech on political and other questions.

The New York Evening Post said: The proceedings of the Circuit Court of the United States at Canandaigua yesterday, before which Miss Susan B. Anthony was on trial for voting in Rochester at the late general election, were very remarkable. Hitherto the advocates of the right of our countrywomen to vote have hardly obtained a hearing, but Miss Anthony has made an important step in advance. It is a great gain to obtain a judicial hearing for her cause; to have the merits of woman suffrage carefully considered by careful and able men. The appearance of so eminent and distinguished a lawyer as Henry R. Selden in her defense will give to the question a new aspect in the minds of the people. The position he took is still more encouraging to those who think that women have a legal right to vote. The distinction he made between the absoluteness of this right and the belief of Miss Anthony that she possessed such a right, since the guilt relates only to the legal guilt in this particular instance, is of no general importance; but his emphatic testimony, irrespective of the present case, that all women have both an absolute and a legal right to vote, is a fact to command attention.

So convinced was Judge Selden of the validity of this opinion, that for the second time in his professional life, as he himself said, he was compelled to offer himself as a witness in behalf of his client. Being sworn, he testified that before the defendant voted she called on him for advice as to her legal right to vote; that he took time to examine the question very carefully, and then advised her that "she was as much a voter as I or any other man"; that he believed then that she had a legal right to vote, and he believed so now, and on that advice she voted. It seems likely that the decision of the Court will be in Miss Anthony's favor. If such be the result the advocates of woman suffrage will change places with the public. They will no longer be forced to obtain hearings from Congressional and Legislative Committees for their claims, but will exercise their right to vote by the authority of a legal precedent against which positive laws forbidding them from voting will be the only remedy. It is a question whether such laws can be passed in this country. A careful examination of the subject must precede any such legislation, and, the inference from the result of Judge Selden's investigation is that the more the subject is studied the less likely will any legislative body be to forbid those women who want to vote from so doing.

[The Rochester Evening Express, June 21st.]

THE NATIONAL CASES AT CANANDAIGUA.

The trial of Miss Anthony at Canandaigua on a charge of having voted illegally on the 5th of November last, in this city, has attracted attention throughout this country and in England. It was a great National trial, intended as Judge Hunt said, as the purpose of the act of voting in this case, to settle a principle. The eminence of the judge presiding and the reputation of the counsel engaged in the case, gave it further significance. All the counsel won new laurels in this contest. Judge Selden could scarcely increase the respect for his character and legal ability by any fresh contest in the forum, but he evinced the power of his logical faculties and his perfect acquaintance with law and legal precedent in his closely reasoned argument. Mr. Crowley, United States District Attorney, made a very able argument in reply, which all agree was worthy of his high position and of the cause in which he appeared for the Government. Mr. Van Voorhis showed legal erudition careful examination of the case in hand, and of the law and decision of courts bearing upon it, making bold and strong points which commanded the attention and respect of the Court, and elicited the approbation of clients and people.

[Commercial Advertiser, June 18, 1873.]

THE FEMALE SUFFRAGISTS.

When a jurist as eminent as Judge Henry R. Selden testifies that he told Miss Anthony before election that she had a right to vote, and this after a careful examination of the question, the whole subject assumes new importance, and Mr. Selden at once becomes the central object of adoration by all the gentle believers in woman's right to the ballot. And when the same able lawyer advocates the cause of Miss Anthony in the United States Courts, there is abundant reason why other men, both lay and legal, should put themselves in an attitude, at least of willingness to change their convictions upon this topic, which now threatens to take on very enlarged proportions. The points made in the argument by Mr. Selden are that the defendant had a legal right to vote; that even if no such right existed, if she believed she had such right and voted in good faith, that she committed no offense; and lastly, he argued that she did vote in pursuance of such belief. The point that Miss Anthony had acted illegally only because she was a woman, was well put. Had her brother, under the same circumstances done the same thing, his act would have been not only innocent but laudable. The crime was, therefore, not in the act done, but in the sex of the person who did it. Women, remarked the Judge, have the same interest in the maintenance of good government as men. No greater absurdity, to use no harsher term, can be presented to the human mind than that of rewarding men and punishing women for the same act, without giving women any voice in the question of which shall be rewarded and which punished. How grateful to Judge Selden must all the suffragists be! He has struck the strongest and most promising blow in their behalf that has yet been given. Dred Scott was the pivot on which the Constitution turned before the war. Miss Anthony seems likely to occupy a similar position now.

[From Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, July, 1873.]

WOMEN'S MEETING.

A meeting of the women's tax-payers' association was held at the Mayor's office yesterday afternoon, the President, Mrs. Lewia C. Smith, in the chair. It had been expected that Judge Selden would address the meeting, but in consequence of professional engagements he had been unable to prepare such an address as he desired, but will speak at a future meeting.

Miss Susan B. Anthony was present, and addressed the meeting. She stated that she had received many letters urging her not to be disheartened by the result of her case, and she assured all that she was far from being discouraged. In fact, she considered that they had won a victory by showing to the world that in order to accomplish her defeat the courts were obliged to set aside everything, even the sacred right of trial by jury. Miss Anthony read extracts from letters received from Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Parker Pillsbury. Mrs. Stanton pours out her indignation in a letter to Mrs. Gage and Miss Anthony thus:

"To have my right to the earth and the fullness thereof equally with man; to do my work and say my say without his let or hindrance, or even question, has filled me with indignation ever since I began to think; and one more act of puny legislation, in line with all that has been done in the past, does not add a feather's weight to my chronic indignation.

"The insult of being tried by men—judges, lawyers, juries, all men—for violating the laws and constitutions of men, made for the degradation and subjugation of my whole sex; to be forever publicly impaled by the unwavering finger of scorn, by party press, and pulpit, so far transcends a petty verdict of a petty judge in a given case, that my continuous wrath against the whole dynasty of tyrants in our political, religious, and social life, has not left one stagnant drop of blood in my veins to rouse for any single act of insult.

"The outrage of trying intelligent, educated, well-bred, native-born American women by juries of men, made up of the riff-raff from the monarchies and empires of the old world, or ignorant natives of the new, who do not read the newspapers, nor form opinions on current events or United States citizens' rights, so overtops the insult of any verdict they could possibly render, that indignation at what they might say is swallowed up in the outrage that they have the right to say anything in limiting the rights of women as citizens in this republic. What are Centennials and Fourth of Julys to us, when our most sacred rights can be made foot-balls for the multitude. Do not, therefore, argue from my silence, that I do not feel every fresh stab at womanhood. Instead of applying lint to the wounds, my own thought has been, how can we wrest the sword from the hand of the tyrant."

The following resolutions were then offered and adopted:

Resolved, That the gross outrage committed in the case of Miss Anthony by the United States Circuit Court, the stamping under foot by Justice Hunt of the Constitution of the United States, and all the forms of law, in order to defeat a woman who could not be defeated otherwise, has in no way discouraged the true friends of woman suffrage, but to the contrary, the unjustifiable means to which the Court was compelled to resort in order to convict Miss Anthony has not only aroused the old woman's rights women into new life and action, but shocked all thinking minds throughout the country, to a consideration of the vital question of American citizenship. Does it, or does it not give to the possessor the right to vote?

Resolved, That we arraign Ward Hunt, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors in his office, committed on the trial of Susan B. Anthony, on a charge of knowingly voting illegally for a representative in Congress. He denied the right of trial by jury; he refused to permit her counsel to address the jury in her behalf; he refused the request of her counsel that the jury be polled; he directed the clerk to enter a verdict of guilty without consulting the jury; he had prejudged her case, and had written his opinion against her before he came to the Court, or had heard the evidence, or the arguments of her counsel. He tried her in a manner indicating that he had undertaken to accomplish a certain result, and that he must do in spite of law or evidence. His assertion that the facts were admitted in her case is false. No facts were admitted on Miss Anthony's trial, except that she was a woman and had voted. The one fact of consequence to the United States was, whether or not Miss Anthony voted for a representative in Congress. To prove this the United States District Attorney proved that she handed to the inspectors four folded ballots, the contents of which were unknown. It did not appear that the ballots were not blanks. There were six boxes, and each elector might cast six ballots. Upon such evidence Judge Hunt decided that it was proved that Miss Anthony voted for a representative in Congress, and refused to submit the case, or the question of fact, to the jury. Therefore,

Resolved, That a violation of the Constitution so palpable, a disregard of the forms of of law so flagrant, demand the impeachment of Justice Hunt, and his removal from a bench he has proved himself unfit to occupy.

Resolved, That we will petition Congress to reverse by Congressional enactment the judgments of Judge Hunt against Miss Anthony and the Inspectors of Election. These fiats of a judicial dictator must not be allowed to remain upon the records of the Court. Trial by jury must be restored to its throne, from which Judge Hunt has hurled it. A constitutional right so sacred must be vindicated by Congress. There is no other tribunal to which we can appeal. Therefore we shall confidently ask Congress to reverse these unjust judgments and rebuke and impeach this unjust judge.

Resolved, That to the Hon. Henry R. Selden for his able and earnest defense of their citizen's right to vote, the women of this country owe a debt of gratitude beyond their present power to pay or appreciate.

Resolved, That we tender our thanks to John Van Voorhis, counsel for the inspectors of the Eighth Ward, for his prompt and efficient defense of their right and duty to register the names and receive the votes of all United States citizens.

Resolved, That we bid Godspeed to our co-laborer, Susan B. Anthony, for the courage and persistence shown during her trial, and thank her for her assurance to the Court (which he did not need) of her unshaken conviction of the legality of her vote, and of her determination to persist in the exercise of her citizen's right of suffrage.

Resolved, That we tender our thanks to the inspectors of election of the Eighth Ward, Messrs. Jones, Marsh, and Hall, for their manliness and courage in receiving the women's vote and maintaining their right and duty in so doing through their long and unfair trial."

A paper of considerable length was read by Mrs. Hebard, which was very fine, and set forth the woman question in a philosophical manner.

Mrs. L. C. Smith said that in stamping his seal of death upon trial by jury, Judge Hunt had proved beyond all cavil the inseparability of man's and woman's interests. For in order to withhold the right of franchise from woman he was obliged to abolish trial by jury, man's only safeguard against the tyranny of the bench.

The meeting then adjourned to meet at three o'clock P.M. on the 24th inst.

Miss Anthony received material sympathy from many persons who sent money to aid in the payment of her fine—Dr. E. B. Foote, of New York, sending $25, and Gerrit Smith, of Peterboro, $100, accompanied by a letter. Dr. Foote has kindly furnished Miss Anthony's reply to him for publication:

ROCHESTER, July 2, 1873.

DR. E. B. FOOTE—MY DEAR SIR: Your letter of June 18, inclosing the quarter of the United States Government's fine for my alleged violation of State law was most welcome, I have waited this acknowledgment from fact of my absence from home since the judge pronounced that verdict and penalty. What a comedy! Such a grave offense and such a paltry punishment!

Now if the United States Government would only demand the payment of the $100 and costs—but it will never do it, because all parties know I will never pay a dime—no, not one. It, is quite enough for me pay all the just claims of the trial; my own counsel, etc. I owe no allegiance to the Government's penalties until I have a voice in it, and shall pay none. What the Government can exact it may, whether of cash or imprisonment.

Do you know my one regret now is that I am not possessed of some real estate here in Rochester so that my name would be on the tax list, and I would refuse to pay the taxes thereon, and then I could carry that branch of the question into the Courts. Protests are no longer worth the paper they are written on. Downright resistance, the actual throwing of the tea overboard, is now the word and work. With many thanks for the $25.

Sincerely yours, SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

WOMAN SUFFRAGE ABOVE HUMAN LAW.

LETTER FROM GERRIT SMITH.

PETERBORO, August 15, 1873

SUSAN B. ANTHONY—DEAR FRIEND: I have your letter. So you have not paid your fine; are not able to pay it; and are not willing to pay it! I send you herein the money to pay it. If you shall still decline doing so, then use the money at your own discretion, to promote the cause of woman suffrage.

I trust that you feel kindly toward Judge Hunt. He is an honest man and an able judge. He would oppress no person—emphatically, no woman. It was a light fine that he imposed upon you. Moreover, he did not require you to be imprisoned until it was paid. In taking your case out of the bands of the jury, he did what he believed he had a perfect right to do; and what [HAND] provided there was no fact to be passed upon) he had precedents for doing. And yet Judge Hunt erred—erred as, but too probably, every other judge would, in like circumstances, have erred. At the hazard of being called, for the ten thousandth time, a visionary and a fanatic for holding opinions which, though they will be entirely welcome to the more enlightened future sense of men, are as entirely repugnant to their present sense, I venture to say that the Judge erred in allowing himself to look into the Constitution. Indeed, yours was a case that neither called for nor permitted the opening of any law-book whatever. You have not forgotten how frequently, in the days of slavery, the Constitution was quoted in behalf of the abomination. As if that paper had been drawn up and agreed upon by both the blacks and the whites, instead of the whites only; and as if slavery protected the rights of the slave instead of annihilating them. I thank God that I was withheld from the great folly and great sin of acknowledging a law for slavery—a law for any piracy—least of all for the superlative piracy. Nor have you forgotten how incessantly, in the late war, our enemies, Northern as well as Southern, were calling for this observance of the Constitution. As if the purpose of that paper was to serve those whose parricidal hands were at the throat of our Nation. I recall but one instance in which I was ever reconciled to profanity. It was when, during the war, I was witnessing a heated conversation between a patriotic Republican and a rabid secession Democrat. The Republican was arguing that the Government should put forth all its powers to suppress the rebellion. At this stage the Democrat thrust in the stereotyped rebel phrase: "but only according to the Constitution." This interruption provoked the Republican to exclaim, as he hurried on, "Damn the Constitution!" The oath so happily helped to express my own feeling that I had no more heart to censure it than the recording angel had to preserve the record of Uncle Toby's famous oath.

And now, in your case, is another wrongful use of the Constitution. The instrument is cited against woman, as if she had united with man in making it, and was, therefore, morally bound by the flagrant usurpation, and legally concluded by it. Moreover, an excuse for turning the Constitution against her is that doing so deprives her of nothing but the pastime of dropping in a box a little piece of paper. Nevertheless, this dropping, inasmuch as it expresses her choice of the guardians of her person and property, is her great natural right to provide for the safety of her life and of the means to sustain it. She has no rights whatever, and she lives upon mere privileges and favors, if others may usurp her rights. In fact she lies at the mercy of men, if men only may choose into whose hands to put the control of her person and property.... I do not complain of Judge Hunt's interpretations of the Constitution on the suffrage question. I do not complain of his refusing to accept the constitutional recognition of woman's right to vote, though that right seems to lie on the very surface of the Constitution amongst her rights of citizenship. Nor do I complain of his passing by this recognition to dig down into the Constitution for proofs of there being two kinds of citizens—one that can vote and one that can not vote. What I complain of is that he did not hold as void, instead of arguing them to be valid, any words in the instrument which seemed to him to favor the disfranchisement of woman and consequent robbery and destruction of her rights. What I complain of is that, instead of his conscientious regard for his oath, he was not prepared to ignore and scout all human law so far as it is antagonistic to natural law and natural rights....

How striking and instructive is the following extract from a speech made a year or two ago in the Spanish Parliament: "Natural rights dwell essentially in the individual, and are derived directly from his own moral nature. They are therefore, so to speak, unlegislatable, since they do not arise from the law, do not depend on the law, and, not depending on the law, can not be abrogated by the law. Born of the organic constitution of the individual, with the individual they live and die, unless a tyrannical, unrighteous, and iniquitous law tears them from him, and then he will have the right to protest forever against this wrong and the iniquity of the law, and to rise against it whenever he can. Well, my lords, the inalienable rights of the Cubans have been torn from them by unrighteous, tyrannical, and iniquitous laws." Would that Judge Hunt and all our judges might, ere long, take the ground of this sublimely eloquent Spaniard, that natural rights are "unlegislatable".... Would that my much esteemed friend, Judge Hunt, had so far outgrown bad law and grown into good law, as to have pronounced at your trial the disenthralment of woman, and thus have set the name of Hunt in immortality by the side of the names of Brougham and Mansfield, and others who have had the wisdom and the courage to thrust aside false paper law and install in its place that sovereign law which is written upon the heart and upon the very foundations of human being! He does not doubt that they did right. He honors them for having done as they did. Nor can he doubt that to deny to woman all part in the making and executing of laws under which her life and property may be taken from her is a crime against her, which no paper law can sanction and which God's law must condemn.... This worship of the Constitution!—how blinding and belittling! I would that every judge who tends to this weakness (and nearly every judge, yes, and nearly every other person tends to it) might find his steps arrested by the warning example of Daniel Webster. This pre-eminently intellectual man, whom nature had fitted to soar in the high sphere of absolute and everlasting law, had so shrivelled his soul by his worship of the Constitution that he came, at last, to desire no other inscription on his grave-stone than his shameless confession of such base worship. And all this, notwithstanding the Constitution was, in his eye, the great bulwark of slavery!

Be of good courage and good cheer, my brave and faithful sister! I trust our country is on the eve of great and blessed changes.... Best of all, the ballot can not much longer be withheld from woman. Men are fast coming to see that it belongs to her as fully as to themselves, and that the country is in perishing need of her wielding it. If the silly portion of our ladies will but cease from their silly apprehension that the plan is to make them vote whether they will or no, and also cease from their ignorant and childish admissions that they already have all the rights they want—then will the American women quickly be enfranchised, and their nation will rapidly achieve a far higher civilization than it is possible for any nation to arrive at which is guilty of the folly and the sin of clothing man with all political power and reducing women to a political cipher.

Cordially yours, GERRIT SMITH.

WASHINGTON NOTES.

BY GRACE GREENWOOD.

When I said that in the dull languor of our summer collapse we felt none of your fierce Northern excitements, I should have excepted the Anthony suffrage case. That touched nearly if not deeply. The ark of the holy political covenant resting here—the sacred mules that draw it being stabled in the Capitol for half a year at a time—the woman who has laid unsanctified hands upon it, is naturally regarded with peculiar horror. I did not take exception to the Times' article of June 19th on this case. It was mild and courteous in tone, and the view taken of the XIV. Amendment plea seems to me the only sound one. I certainly do not want to get into your political preserves by any quibble or dodge. I want my right there freely granted and guaranteed, and will be politely treated when I come, or I won't stay. The promised land of justice and equality is not to be reached by a short cut. I fear we have a large part of the forty years of struggle and zigzaging before us yet. I am pretty sure our Moses has not appeared. I think he will be a woman. Often the way seems dark, as well as long, when I see so much fooling with the great question of woman's claims to equal educational advantages with men; to just remuneration for good work, especially in teaching, and fair credit for her share in the patriotic and benevolent enterprises of the age. I do not say that equal pay for equal services will never be accorded to woman, even in the civil service, till she has the ballot to back her demand; but that is the private opinion of many high Government officials. I do not say that woman's right to be represented, as well as taxed, will never be recognized as a logical practical result of the democratic principle till the Democrats come in power. But it may be so. The Gospel was first offered to the Jews, but first accepted by the Gentiles.

In your article, fair as it was in spirit, you failed to touch upon two points which struck me rather painfully. It seems that Judge Hunt, after pronouncing a learned, and, I suppose, a sound opinion, peremptorily ordered the jury to bring the defendant in guilty. Now, could not twelve honest, intelligent jurymen be trusted to defend their birthright against one woman? Why such zeal, such more than Roman sternness? Again, in the trial of the inspectors of election, why were both judge and jurymen so merciful? No verdict of guilty was ordered, and the council of twelve who had seen fit to punish Miss Anthony by a fine of $100 and costs, merely mulcted in the modest sum of $25, each defenseless defendant sinning against light. Was it that they considered in their manly clemency the fact that women have superior facilities for earning money, or did they give heed to the old, old excuse, "The woman tempted me, and I did register"?

It surely is strange that such severe penalties should be visited on a woman, for a first and only indiscretion in the suffrage line, when a man may rise up on election morning and go forth, voting and to vote. If he be of an excitable and mercurial nature, one of the sort of citizens which sweet Ireland empties on us by the county, he may sportively flit about among the polls, from ward to ward, of the metropolis, and no man says to him nay; he may even travel hilariously from city to city, with free passes and free drinks—who treats Miss Anthony?—making festive calls, and dropping ballots for cards, and no disturbance comes of it—he is neither fined nor confined. So, it would seem, "a little voting is a dangerous thing."

Say what you will, the whole question of woman's status in the State and the Church, in society and the family, is full of absurd contradictions and monstrous anomalies. We are so responsible, yet irresponsible—we are idols, we are idiots—we are everything, we are nothing. We are the Caryatides, rearing up the entablature of the temple of liberty we are never allowed to enter. We may plot against a government, and hang for it; but if we help to found and sustain a government by patriotic effort and devotion, by toil and hardship, by courage, loyalty, and faith, by the sacrifice of those nearest and dearest to us, and then venture to clutch at the crumbs that fall from the table where our Masters Jonathan, Patrick, Hans, and Sambo sit at feast, you arrest us, imprison us, try us, fine us, and then add injury to insult, by calling us old, ugly, and fanatical.

One is forcibly reminded of the sermon of the colored brother on woman, the heads of which discourse were: "Firstly. What am woman? Secondly. Whar did she come from? Thirdly. Who does she belong to? Fourthly. Which way am she gwine to?"

The law and the Gospel have settled the "secondly" and "thirdly." Woman came from man, and belongs to him by the mortgage he holds on her through that spare-rib; but "firstly" and "fourthly" remain as profound and unsolvable questions as they were before the Ethiopian divine wrestled with them. But perhaps this troublous and perplexed existence is our "be-all and end-all"; that in the life beyond, man may foreclose that old mortgage and re-absorb woman into his glorified and all-sufficient being.

I have never believed with Miss Anthony, that the XIV. Amendment was going to help us. I have never accepted certain other of her theories; but I believe in and accept her as a woman of intense convictions, of high courage and constancy; and I don't like to hear her ridiculed and abused. If anything can make me think meanly of my young brothers of the press, it is the way they pelt and pester Susan B. Anthony. For shame, boys! Never a one of you will make the man she is. Even some of our Washington editors turn aside from the fair game. Providence, in its inscrutable wisdom, has provided for them in the Board of Public Works, to vent their virtuous indignation and manly scorn of the woman they are determined shall stand in perpetual pillory in the market-place of this great, free Republic.—New York Times.

The Washington, D. C., Star says of Judge Hunt's opinion: "If his views are to prevail, of what effect are the suffrage amendments to the Federal Constitution."

[The County Post, Washington Co., N. Y., Friday, June 27, 1873].

NOT A VOTER.

The United States Courts have pronounced on Miss Anthony's case, which she so adroitly made by voting last fall, in company with fourteen others of her sex. The decision was adverse to the claim made by this devoted friend of female suffrage, that as the Constitution now stood, women had a right to vote. Accordingly the indomitable old lady was found guilty of violating the law regulating the purity of the ballot-box, and fined one hundred dollars and costs. A good many journals seem to regard this as a good joke on Susan B, as they call her, and make it the excuse for more poor jokes of their own. It may be stupid to confess it, but we can not see where the laugh comes in. If it is a mere question of who has got the best of it, Miss Anthony is still ahead; she has voted, and the American Constitution has survived the shock. Fining her one hundred dollars does not rub out that fact that fourteen women voted, and went home, and the world jogged on as before. The decision of the judge does not prove that it is wrong for women to vote, it does not even prove that Miss Anthony did wrong in voting. It only shows that one judge on the bench differs in opinion from other equally well qualified judges off the bench. It is not our province to find fault with this decision of the United States Court at Rochester. Miss Anthony may be wrong in attempting to vote; of that we are not certain. But of the greater question back of it, of Miss Anthony's inherent right to vote we have no question, and that after all is the more important matter. This Rochester breakwater may damn back the stream for a while, but it is bound to come, sweeping away all barriers. The opposition to extending the suffrage to the other sex is founded alone on prejudice arising from social custom. Reason and logic are both against it. Women will not be voters possibly for some years to come; it is not desirable that the franchise should come too quick; but they are certain to have the full privilege of citizenship in the end.

[The Age, Thursday, July 31, 1873.]

KU-KLUX PRISONERS.

The Ku-Klux prisoners are, it seems, now to be released. They are persons some of whom had committed assaults and other offenses cognizable by the laws of the States where they lived, and the Ku-Klux legislation by Congress was a political device as unnecessary as it was unconstitutional. Perhaps the most ridiculous, as well as the most unjust prosecution under the Ku-Klux law was that instituted against Miss Anthony for voting in Rochester. Under her view of her rights, she presented herself at the polls, and submitted her claims to the proper officers, who decided that she had a right to vote. She practiced no fraud or concealment of any kind. She did what every good citizen here would do, if any doubt arose from assessment, registration, or residence, as to his right to vote. He would state the case to the election officers, and abide their decision. Yet this, we are told, is a criminal offense under the Ku-Klux law, for which a citizen who has done exactly what he ought to have done, may be fined and imprisoned as a criminal. Nay, if, as often happens, a point of doubt is submitted to our Court of Common Pleas and decided in favor of the applicant, he is still liable to criminal prosecution under the Federal Ku-Klux law, if a United States Commissioner or Judge differs from the State Judge in the construction of the State law. Since the victims of the Ku-Klux act are now receiving pardons, we hope the fine of $100 unlawfully imposed on Miss Anthony may be remitted. We do not think there was a case of more gross injustice ever practiced under forms of law, than the conviction of that lady for a criminal offense in voting, with the assent of the legal election officers to whom her right was submitted. If all the victims of this unconstitutional law were as innocent as she was, they can not be too soon released. Even those who were guilty of offenses cognizable by the State law, were unjustly tried and condemned under an unconstitutional statute passed for political effect.

[From the Philadelphia Age].

THE FUNNY CASE OF MISS ANTHONY.

The case of Miss Susan B. Anthony seems to be dismissed with a laugh by most of the press; but from the first institution of a prosecution against her under the Ku-Klux law, we have regarded the proceeding as one in which the injustice was not cloaked by the absurdity. The law was passed by Congress on a political cry that massacre and outrage menaced negroes at the polls in the Southern States, and now we have it used to oppress a woman in Rochester, New York. We are not debarred from saying "oppressed" because the judge left the fine to be levied on her property instead of imprisoning her person—in a State in which women have, we suppose, long been exempt from imprisonment for debt. But the chief outrage in the case is that it affords the first case, we believe, in the United States, or anywhere in modern times, of a conviction for a crime when there was no criminal intent. The proof, or the presumption of this, is essential to a crime in the criminal law of every civilized nation. The case of Miss Anthony was that of a lady who believed that the much vaunted amendments of the Federal Constitution extended to white women; and many lawyers and Congressmen have also avowed this opinion. We do not hold it, but we do not doubt that Miss Anthony does, very sincerely. We think as the Judge says in her case, that the Federal Constitution has nothing to do with the matter; that is wholly regulated by the Constitution of New York. But every word of his argument was equally strong to show that he, a Federal Judge, had nothing to do with the matter, and that it wholly belonged to the courts of New York. They know, we presume, no law that can create a crime without a criminal intention, and we deny the right of Congress or any earthly authority to pass so monstrous a law. Every day in criminal courts that point arises. If a man charged with larceny is proved to have taken the goods of another, but under some idea that he had a right to them, no matter how erroneous, the criminal prosecution is instantly dismissed. Our eminent jurist, Judge King, used to say: "This is a civil suit run mad." Has any citizen of Philadelphia supposed that if there is a doubt as to his right to vote—one of those numerous doubts that arise in changes of residence, time of registration, naturalization, etc.—and wishing scrupulously to do right, he go to the window and fully and fairly state his case, and the election officers consider it, and adjudge that he should vote then and there, has any citizen heretofore known that he thus became liable to conviction for a crime under the Ku-Klux laws, if some judge of a court should think the election officers decided the point erroneously?

Yet that is the doctrine of Miss Anthony's case. Her garb and person sufficed to tell she was a woman when she approached the polls, and there was also argument over the matter, exhibiting afresh the fact notorious at her home, that she claimed a lawful right to vote under certain amendments of the Constitution. She was no repeater or false personator, or probably she would not be persecuted, and certainly she would be pardoned.

She submitted her right to the election officers, and they, the judges appointed by the law, decided in her favor. It is just the case we have supposed in Philadelphia, and which often really occurs here, and may occur anywhere. And now we are told the Ku-Klux law makes this hitherto laudable and innocent mode of procedure a crime, punishable with fine and imprisonment! This is the decision over which many journals are laughing because the first victim is a woman. We can not see the joke.

[Chicago Evening Journal, Dec. 1, 1874].

Mrs. Myra Bradwell, the editor and publisher of the Legal News, of this city, is a warm advocate of woman's rights. In the last number of the News, speaking of Susan B. Anthony, she declares that Judge Ward Hunt, of the Federal bench, "violated the Constitution of the United States more, to convict her of illegal voting, than she did in voting, for he had sworn to support it, she had not."

Sister Myra is evidently not afraid of being hauled up for contempt of court.

[St. Louis Daily Globe, Thursday, June 26, 1873].

MISS ANTHONY'S CASE.

JUDGE HUNT'S DECISION REVIEWED—SHE HAD A RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL.

Editor of St. Louis Globe:—I ask the favor of a small space in your paper to notice the very remarkable decision of Judge Hunt, in the case of the United States vs. Susan B. Anthony.

The Judge tells us "that the right of voting, or the privilege of voting, is a right or privilege arising under the constitution of the States, and not of the united States. If the right belongs to any particular person, it is because such person is entitled to it as a citizen of the State where he offers to exercise it, and not because of citizenship of the United States."

If this position be true (which I do not admit), then Judge Hunt should have pronounced the act of Congress unconstitutional, and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. If the matter belongs exclusively to the States, then the United States have nothing to do with it, and clearly have no right to interfere and punish a person for the (supposed) violation of a State law. But this is one of the least of the criticisms to which this opinion is exposed. A far graver one consists in the fact that the defendant was denied the right of a trial by jury.

The Supreme Court of the United States say: "Another guarantee of freedom was broken when Milligan was denied a trial by jury. The great minds of the country have differed on the correct interpretation to be given to various provisions of the Federal Constitution, and judicial decision has been often invoked to settle their true meaning; but, until recently, no one ever doubted that the right of trial by jury was fortified in the organic law against the power of attack. It is now assailed; but if ideas can be expressed in words, and language has any meaning, this right—one of the most valuable in a free country—is preserved to every one accused of crime, who is not attached to the army, or navy, or militia in actual service. The VI. Amendment affirms that in 'all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury,' language broad enough to embrace all persons and cases."—Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, p. 122.

It is true a jury was impaneled, but this was all, for we are informed that, at the conclusion of the opinion, Judge Selden requested that the case should be submitted to the jury upon the question of intent, and upon certain propositions of law; but the court declined to submit the case upon any question whatever, and directed them to render a verdict of guilty against the defendant.

I have been pained to witness, on the part of some of our newspapers, a disposition to treat this decision with indifference, by some even with levity. Has it come to this, that because she is a woman the defendant can not get a fair and impartial trial? The case of the inspectors was not treated in this way—but then they were men.

JUSTICE.

[The Journal, Thursday, July 30, 1874].

THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL ON SUSAN B. ANTHONY'S CASE.

To the Editor of the Syracuse Journal:—I wish to call the attention of the readers of The Journal, especially legal ones, to the underlying intent and unjust perversions of the Albany Law Journal of this month, in its leading article, entitled "Can a Judge direct a Verdict of Guilty?"

This Law Journal, which professes to lead the legal craft of the Empire State in the devious ways of legal justice, has but now, thirteen months after its date, a review of Miss Anthony's celebrated trial, as conducted by Judge Ward Hunt. Having taken a year and a month to get the first principles of justice and of constitutional law through his head, the belated editor of that law journal has come to the conclusion—self-evident as it ought to be to a child—that a judge has no legal right to take from an accused person the right of trial by jury. Sapient editor, wise man! No second Solomon, you. You, with all your legal lore, have at last managed to see, in a year and a month, what the veriest simple woman in the land, all uneducated as women are in the technicalities of the law, had no difficulty of seeing in an hour. Right of trial by jury holds all other legal rights within its grasp. Deprive a man or woman of that, and of what use is your habeas corpus act, of what use your law of penalties or acquittal? The terrors of the middle ages, the lettres de cachet, sequestration, confiscation, rayless dungeons, and iron masks at once rise in view.

We will, however, allow to this editor one grain of sense, as he acknowledges the dangerous power in the hands of judges of the United States Circuit Court, a power they possess outside of right, a power through which one of them can, as did Judge Ward Hunt in Miss Anthony's case, transcend his legal rights, to warp and bend constitutional guarantees to his own ends, and having so done that there is no legal appeal from his unwarrantable decision. A United States judge is practically irresponsible. Nothing can touch him for illegality in office but a Congressional impeachment, which from a combination of circumstances is difficult to bring about. He holds the dearest rights of American citizens at pleasure in his hands, and this is law and justice in the United States. These are solely and entirely man-made laws. No woman had finger or tongue in the matter.

But Mr. Albany Law Journal editor, after acknowledging their injustice toward accused persons, and their dangers to the liberties of every individual, tells Miss Anthony that "if she" is dissatisfied with "our laws," meaning, of course, man-made laws like these, "she would better adopt the methods of reform that men use, or, better still, emigrate." Was ever a more disreputable phrase penned? Disgraceful to its author, and doubly so, as he pretends to be a teacher of law. This is the language of a very Nero come to judgment.

"Our laws." Whose laws, pray? The laws of men made for "our" benefit alone. Is this what Mr. Editor of the Albany Law Journal means? Pray, Mr. Albany Law Journal, what are "the methods of reform that men use," when they are dissatisfied with "our laws," only to speak against such laws, and to vote for men to make better ones? Miss Anthony has tried both of "the methods of reform men use," and for doing the last was arrested, tried, fined, and all but imprisoned. It seems "the methods of reform men use" are, after all, not just the kind of methods for Miss Anthony and her friends to use. But then, Mr. Albany Law Journal allows Miss Anthony and Mrs. Gage one other alternative, which he deems a "better one," i.e., to "emigrate."

Mr. Editor continues: "We can well afford to lose her who rehearsed the story of her wrongs in public addresses, in twenty-nine of the post-office districts of Monroe, and twenty-one of Ontario, in her canvass of those counties prior to her trial, and Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage, who made a speech on this subject in Canandaigua and sixteen other towns of Ontario County, previous to Miss Anthony's trial, June 17, 1873, with a view, of course, of influencing public opinion in that region, so that a conviction could not be had."

As Judge Hunt trampled on the citizen's right of trial by jury, so Mr. Albany Law Journal shows himself to be of the same ilk, by desiring to trample on that other guaranteed constitutional right of free speech. He would ostracise Miss Anthony and Mrs. Gage; he would banish them from the country because they dared to use one of "the methods of reform that men use," i.e., speaking of their "wrongs" in order to educate and enlighten public opinion. If old Greece could banish her best citizen, Aristides, simply because he was her most just one, Miss Anthony and myself certainly ought to consider it a matter of self-gratulation that we are deemed fit for banishment because of our demand for justice; justice not merely for ourselves, but for one-half the nation.

That editor's contempt of rights and justice, as shown in his article, is simply amazing. He might as well have said in so many words, "This country and its government is for the benefit of us males alone; you women are part and parcel of our property; if you are not suited with all things as we fix them for you, then get out from our country." This is the tenor of what Mr. Albany Law Journal editor says. Does not every honest lawyer's face tingle with shame when he reads this disgraceful sentiment in that journal to which he so constantly looks for instruction in the higher departments of justice? Does not his republicanism revolt from such a sentiment? Does he not here recognize the enunciation of a principle as directly opposed to liberty as even Judge Hunt's control of jury trial?

This journal shows that the right to do a thing and the power to do it are distinctly separate. Judge Hunt did what he had the power to do, but not the right to do. Mr. Law Journal possesses neither the right nor the power of banishing those citizens who do not conform to his wishes, but he has evinced a desire to hold such power, and did he have it, the country would find in him a tyrant of the same class as Judge Hunt.

As dilatory as this editor has been in reviewing this important case, he is equally timid in his criticism upon it. Currying to judicial and political power, he terms Judge Hunt's willful and knowing infraction of law "a mistake," but in regard to Miss Anthony, he says, "she intended deliberately to break the law." A large class of people believe just the contrary. We who know Miss Anthony well, and who believe with her, know that, on the contrary, she intended to do an act which is protected by the law, instead of breaking law; she was acting under authority of the law. Because Judge Hunt defied the law; because the editor of the Albany Law Journal is inexcusably ignorant of, or recklessly indifferent to the law, it does not follow that Miss Anthony belongs to that class, or should be judged by their corrupt standard. Miss Anthony, in common with hundreds, nay, thousands of other women, as well as of a large class of scholarly men—men of intelligence and a broad sense of justice—men, too, of political insight—fully believes that to woman, equally with man, does the Constitution secure political rights. These persons, this large class, believe that the XIII., XIV., and XV. Amendments to the national Constitution overrode and destroyed all those parts of State constitutions which were, or are now, by expression contrary to their provisions, and they believe that the fundamental right of citizens of the United States is the right to take part in making the laws which shall govern them; the exercise of this right to be regulated (not prevented) by States. They do not concede Miss Anthony to have been a law-breaker as the Albany Law Journal, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, and other friends of Judge Hunt concede her to have been. If the judiciary of the country is so far powerful, and so far irresponsible as to warp the law in favor of its own prejudices, even to the extent of preventing trial by jury, as Judge Hunt is conceded to have done, then our judiciary and not our criminals is our dangerous class. With such judges as Hunt, who has attempted to crush out the trial by jury, and make of the jury merely an ornamental tail to his judicial kite; with such teachers as the Albany Law Journal, which, while acknowledging Hunt's outrageous illegality of action, yet calls it "a mistake," and speaks of him as "a good and pure" man, the administrators and the expounders of law have become the most dangerous enemies of the people. The eminent Judge Brady recognizes the low condition of legal honor, and in a recent speech, said he hoped to see the day when his legal brethren would understand that it was their duty to assist in the administration of justice, and not to lend themselves to degrading efforts to defeat it. We commend these remarks to the consideration of Judge Hunt and the editor of the Albany Law Journal.

With that lack of self-respect which seems to inhere in all opponents of woman suffrage, that editor, in addition to all else, tries to indulge in a little facetiousness over the threadbare witticisms that Miss Anthony "was a woman when she voted." Coming down through the lips of Judge Hunt and the United States District Attorney of the prosecution, it reaches the law editor in time for him to say that "on the trial of Miss Anthony she conceded that on the day of election she was a woman," and in a parenthesis ("we know that she generally was a woman, and are not surprised to learn that she was on election day.") What an amazing platitude this is to fall from the lips of a teacher of law. That the United States District Attorney engaged in the prosecution should degrade the dignity of the law by the question (to Judge Selden) "if it was conceded that on the day of election Miss Anthony was a woman?" to which the reply was, "Yes, now and ever heart and soul a woman"; that Judge Hunt should ask her "if she voted as a female"? to which he got the answer, "No, sir, I voted as a citizen of the United States"; those questions, I say, were not so much a matter of surprise under the peculiar forms of the trial, but that a law journal should so far forget its dignity; should so far descend from argument, from discussion of law to unseemly banter on the question of sex; that it should so far stoop from a canvass of the most important trial that ever took place, to a senile jest on woman, must be matter of astonishment to every candid mind in the legal fraternity, and certainly has a tendency to convince the female portion of the country that the male man is fast losing his right to the definition of "man, a reasoning animal."

In regard to that editor's expressed desire that the case of Miss Anthony should have gone to the jury, as they would have brought in a verdict of guilty, I will inform him that one of those jurymen told me his verdict would have been "not guilty" had he been allowed by Judge Hunt to express his opinions, "nor would he have been alone." This was just what Hunt knew and feared and was determined should not take place. Therefore he gagged the jury and ordered the verdict of guilty entered—a verdict which, as this editor acknowledges, was never rendered.

Fayetteville, N. Y. MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE.

ULYSSES S. GRANT,

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

To all to whom those Presents shall come, Greeting:

WHEREAS, at the June term, 1873, of the United States Circuit Court of the Northern District of New York, one Beverly W. Jones, one Edwin T. Marsh, and one William B. Hall were convicted of illegally registering certain persons as voters, and receiving their votes, and were sentenced each to pay a fine of twenty-five dollars,

AND WHEREAS, the Honorable H. A. Sargent asks that they be pardoned, in view of the peculiar circumstances of their offense,

Now, therefore, be it known, that I, Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States of America, in consideration of the premises, divers other good and sufficient reasons me thereunto moving, do hereby grant to the said Beverly W. Jones, Edwin T. Marsh, and William B. Hall, a full and unconditional pardon.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto signed my name and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

[SEAL.] Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of March, A.D. 1874, and of the Independence of the United States the Ninety-eighth.

By the President. U. S. GRANT.

HAMILTON FISH, Secretary of State.

CORRESPONDENCE FROM WASHINGTON—SPECIAL TO THE COMMONWEALTH.

WASHINGTON, April 14, 1874.

SUSAN ANTHONY'S CASE.

Speaking of women, reminds me that a report will soon be made by the Judiciary Committee upon the petition of Susan B. Anthony for a remission of her fine for voting in the last Presidential campaign for General Grant and Henry Wilson. The friends of woman's suffrage confidently expect a favorable report upon this subject from the committee. It was a clear case of a decision by a judge in excess of his authority, and acting without warrant of law. It will not be a decision if favorably made into which the right of suffrage will necessarily enter. Miss Anthony claims her conviction was unconstitutional under the law, the judge having refused her the right of trial by jury in that he directed the jury to bring in a verdict of guilty. She insists that this proceeding of the judge was in derogation of her legal right of trial by jury, and as by law she had no appeal in a criminal case from the decision of a single judge, that it is the duty, as it is in the power, of Congress to remit the fine which she has been ordered to pay with the costs. This simply involves a legal question, and one which the Judiciary Committee will be quite likely to decide in Susan's favor as she has both law and precedent on her side. If the committee report favorably to the House, it will be quite likely to pass on its merits as a legal question, giving many members an opportunity to vote as their sympathies would direct without committing themselves squarely to the question of woman's suffrage. It is a step that will pave the way to this in the future. Mr. Sargent has introduced a similar bill in the Senate, and Senator Carpenter is pledged not only to its support but announces himself ready to work for its passage.

The question of whether woman shall vote has become one of live issues in politics to-day, and must be met by parliaments and people whether they will or no. Susan B. Anthony, as the pioneer in this crusade, holds the respectful consideration of a large number of our public men. They have learned that she is in earnest in the advocacy of equal rights, social and political, for her sex. She has no other religion than work for this cause, unless it be war upon what she calls the male despotism of both church and State. She will have gained in this, the great cause to which she has consecrated her life, a substantial victory. Notwithstanding it does not bear directly upon the question of suffrage, it will be a recognition of the fact that judges can not with impunity make decisions that woman has no rights that they are bound to respect, and the rebuke that this remission of her fine, if ordered by Congress, will be to the judge presiding in her case is one that his associates throughout the country will be sure to heed. This will at the same time give courage and hope to the friends of equal rights to all regardless of race, sex, or previous condition of servitude.

MINOR vs. HAPPERSETT.

(Toledo Sunday Journal, April, 1875,)

We insert to-day a communication from a friend of equal rights, who highly condemns the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court—his opinion also being from a legal standpoint. There is no doubt but that although the mere letter of the Constitution may be adhered to, women not being specified as being people and not non-entities, the interpretation is clear behind the spirit of the Constitution. It is then the manifest duty of Congress, since the Supreme Court gives the conservative interpretation, to so amend the Constitution as to bring it up unmistakably to the design of the framers, which was representation for all the people.

THE GREAT USURPATION.

President Woman's Suffrage Association, Toledo, Ohio:

DEAR MADAM: What a fraud is practiced by the administration of this government upon the provisions of the Constitution of the United States! As government is administered, the female portion of the public are defrauded of constitutional right, and made to become political slaves. Since the beginning, all the way down to the present day, woman has been debarred of all political privilege, though reckoned and accounted as one of the people, in matters of census and taxation. Her disabilities in this behalf were removed by the adoption of the National Constitution; but nullification of that Constitution and a high handed usurpation on the part of the States, have ever hindered the enjoyment of her constitutional rights. But so long as she is classed by the Constitution as one of the people—so long as the people are the owners, the proprietors of the government established by the Constitution—so long as it provides for self-government, popular sovereignty—so long must she be entitled to take part in administration, though prevented from doing so by fine and imprisonment.

I am awakened to this subject of woman suffrage by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, made at Washington this week. I have not seen the text of the opinion read by the Chief Justice, but I find this statement in the Court news of Monday last:

"No. 182.—Virginia L. Minor agt. Reese Happersett: in error to Supreme Court of Missouri.—The plaintiff in error instituted an action against Happersett, who was the judge of an election, for denying her the right to vote. She based her right to vote upon the ground that as a citizen of the United States she had that right under the Constitution. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion, holding, first, that women are and always have been citizens of the United States as well as men; second, the Constitution of the United States does not attach the right of voting to the right of citizenship; third, nor does the Constitution of any of the States make the right to vote coextensive with citizenship; fourth, consequently, women are not entitled to vote by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, when the State laws do not give the right. Affirmed."

The great usurpation is now affirmed, legalized, by the decree of the Judicial Department of this government! More than 20,000,000 of the people of this Nation have been declared without the pale of political rights secured to them by the Constitution of the fathers. This decision indorses the disfranchisement of every female in the land, so long endured by her. Her citizenship, which the National Constitution makes evidence of her copartnership, or tenancy in common, or proprietorship in the Government, is worthless—is only a name; and does not enable her to exercise the privileges and immunities of our system of self-government which that Constitution declares this government to be—a government by and for its citizens. Woman can not now exercise her constitutional right—she is only a cipher, important once in a decade, in numbering the people—she is only a political slave, a helpless Helot. Make ready, adorn your person, O woman, to celebrate the coming centennial of the Declaration of American Independence of the British throne! Mark! a woman sits upon that throne and wears the royal crown! But, glorious parchment is that old Declaration. That instrument marks an epoch in government and political philosophy. It certifies the rights of the human race. Its truths sounded in American ears on every fourth of July, for one hundred years, save one, have, nevertheless, failed in their realization, and, to-day, one half the population of this Nation can not exercise a political right. How happens this state of affairs?—not that the Constitution hinders woman and prevents her participation in matters of government, for it is abundant in its provisions in her behalf. Let me examine and try to ascertain the point of difficulty. I copy from the Constitution a provision which covers the entire question of woman's right of suffrage:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year, by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature."—[Art. 1. Sec. 2.]

The law and logic of woman's right—her political right—to vote for members of Congress, President and Vice-President, appear thus in argument: These officers are to be chosen "by the people of the several States"—that is by the men and women of the Nation. The personality of the people, by the creative fiat, is distinguished by difference of sex, male and female. The choosers, the people of the several States, are required to have certain qualifications to enable them to choose, and these qualifications are to be subject to State regulations. The right to vote for these officers of the United States is anchored in the Constitution—no State may nullify that right—it can only regulate its exercise:—for example, prescribe, as qualifications for access to the ballot-box, that the chooser or voter shall be twenty-one years old, a resident of the State for one year, of the county or town for thirty days, etc.—these are properly qualifications and such as the Constitution intends. Every State Constitution limits the right to a part only of the people, which is denial of right to the other portion of the people, and not regulation or the right by way of adjective qualifications, as illustrated above.

Can sex either qualify or disqualify a chooser, one of the people to cast a ballot for President? All the States, in unchecked nullification, pronounce in the affirmative and write it in their constitutions—the masculine qualifies, the feminine disqualifies—and this has just now been echoed by the Supreme Court of the United States! My mind and reason forbid my acceptance of such postulate.

The term "people" comprehends and includes female persons as well as male persons. It is impossible, therefore, that sex, either the one or the other, is contemplated by the Constitution as a qualification or disqualification for suffrage. There must be National officers, President, etc., else no government; they are to be chosen—this calls for choosers or voters; the "people" are to choose—the people are a majority of persons—these persons are, some male, some female—no limitation is indicated as to which shall belong the right to vote; sex, it seems, is out of the question, as the people are of both sexes, so both male and female must vote or choose at the polls. Let the States regulate the approaches to the ballot-box, but not deny the right of user, by the people of the Nation. The Constitution exacts all this—it is plain, it is positive—there is no hint in the same that there shall be had at the polls any preference on account of sex. Expulsion of woman from the polls by State nullification is a gigantic wrong—a villainous usurpation.

Again, some things carry in their very face the absurd, the incongruous, the ridiculous; States enacting laws and forming constitutions which are interpreted as warrants of right to vote—the masculine gender, this qualifies for voting—the feminine, this disqualifies the voter. How ridiculous! Virility the distinguishing qualification of voters in the United States! How queer this looks and sounds. Sex is elemental—inherent in all the people, and should never be deemed ground of qualification or disqualification to vote, any more than the height or weight of person. But the Supreme Court of the United States wink at the wickedness of the States as nullifiers, and allow the masculine usurpation to remain. Perhaps this grave body of learned Justices look upon the question of qualification in a broader or other sense than that taught by Dr. Webster. Their decision, it seems, turns upon the use and meaning of that word. This, then, is the solemn conclusion of the embodied justice of the land—qualification to vote, MASCULINE GENDER!—and not things in common belonging to every person of the entire population, no matter what the sex; such as age, residence, etc.

Madam, you have no available political rights—the Constitution intends you shall have and exercise them, and it has made provisions accordingly—but the false interpretations of the courts, and the trespassing State Constitutions have hitherto hindered you. But I believe a day of revolution, call it reckoning if you please, is at hand—fast approaching. President Lincoln liberated by proclamation, three or four millions of chattel slaves. President Grant has the power, Constitutional power, to liberate, to-day, twenty millions of political slaves, of which, I am sorry to say, you are one. Let politicians and political parties beware how they treat this question of woman suffrage. What became of the old Whig Party, in consequence of its alliance with chattel slavery. Illium fuit.

Sincerely yours, etc., HORACE DRESSER.

[The Toledo Sunday Journal.]

The New York Evening Post has a long article relative to the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the right of women to vote under the Constitution of the United States, coinciding in the decision. It closes by saying: "The advocates of woman suffrage will scarcely be disappointed by this judgment. We do not believe that sincere friends of the proposed reform will regret the failure to secure it by trickery."

There are few who have maintained that the XIV. and XV. Amendments secured suffrage to women as well as to colored men, who would be willing to admit that they desired to obtain suffrage through trickery? Either it is, or is not, conveyed through the Constitution and the Amendments. Certainly if it is, they have a right to avail themselves of it; and even if it is not, it is nevertheless, a right. The woman suffragists believe that the withholdal from women of the right of suffrage is a fraud and an imposition. To secure them what is already their right, can not involve trickery. Every day and every hour that the right of suffrage is withheld from women, a monstrous wrong is practiced upon them. As long as there were no women who demanded the ballot, and by tacit consent it was relinquished, the fraud practiced by debarring them from it was merely of a negative character—but the privilege should have been left open; but from the moment that one woman demanded it, an outrage was practiced upon her by the entire people in denying it her, and the plea that it is not woman's sphere, which is sometimes made, is the most shallow subterfuge of any, for it is not for men, but for woman alone, to determine what that sphere is, or is not.

FOOTNOTES:

[208] Alvin Stewart, one of the noble pioneers in Anti-Slavery.



* * * * *



Transcriber's note:

The transcriber made changes as below indicated to the text to correct obvious errors:

1. p. 10. permanance —> permanence 2. p. 18, batte-field —> battle-field 3. p. 80, menancing —> menacing 4. p. 84, ALL HUMAN GOVERNMENT. —> ALL HUMAN GOVERNMENT." 5. p. 88, Footnote #47, no footnote marker in footnote text. 6. p. 103, enfrachising —> enfranchising 7. p. 112, I have read —> "I have read 8. p. 119, Doubtles —> Doubtless 9. p. 125, it will led —> it will lead 10. p. 139, Do they like —> "Do they like 11. p. 189, "I ask you —> I ask you 12. p. 190, resolutions —> resolutions. 13. p. 224, consience —> conscience 14. p. 246, Thank you —> Thank you. 15. p. 284, Footnote #99, TRIAN —> TRAIN 16. p. 327, inviduous —> invidious 17. p. 348, everhelp —> everheld 18. p. 371, suffage —> suffrage 19. p. 424, indignat —> indignant 20. p. 435, devolop —> develop 21. p. 438, Aniversary —> Anniversary 22. p. 439, sincerly —> sincerely 23. p. 442, Athony —> Anthony 24. p. 444, appropiate —> appropriate 25. p. 455, delaring —> declaring 26. p. 530, sate —> state 27. p. 531, elswhere —> elsewhere 28. p. 554, surrended —> surrendered 29. p. 587, Dictrict —> District 30. p. 638, stautte —> statute 31. p. 666, syonymous —> synonymous 32. p. 691, ursurped —> usurped 33. p. 692, eithth —> eight 34. p. 708, folowing —> following 35. p. 723,

THE END