An Account of the Proceedings on the Trial of Susan B. Anthony.
by Anonymous.
PREFACE.
At the election of President and Vice President of the United States, and members of Congress, in November, 1872, SUSAN B. ANTHONY, and several other women, offered their votes to the inspectors of election, claiming the right to vote, as among the privileges and immunities secured to them as citizens by the fourteenth amendment to the Const.i.tution of the United States. The inspectors, JONES, HALL, and MARSH, by a majority, decided in favor of receiving the offered votes, against the dissent of HALL, and they were received and deposited in the ballot box. For this act, the women, fourteen in number, were arrested and held to bail, and indictments were found against them severally, under the 19th Section of the Act of Congress of May 30th, 1870, (16 St.
at L. 144.) charging them with the offense of "knowingly voting without having a lawful right to vote." The three inspectors were also arrested, but only two of them were held to bail, HALL having been discharged by the Commissioner on whose warrant they were arrested. All three, however were jointly indicted under the same statute--for having "knowingly and wilfully received the votes of persons not ent.i.tled to vote."
Of the women voters, the case of Miss ANTHONY alone was brought to trial, a _nolle prosequi_ having been entered upon the other indictments. Upon the trial of Miss ANTHONY before the U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York, at Canandaigua, in June, 1873, it was proved that before offering her vote she was advised by her counsel that she had a right to vote; and that she entertained no doubt, at the time of voting, that she was ent.i.tled to vote. It was claimed in her behalf:
I. That she was legally ent.i.tled to vote.
II. That if she was not so ent.i.tled, but voted in good faith in the belief that it was her right, she was guilty of no crime.
III. That she did vote in such good faith, and with such belief.
The court held that the defendant had no right to vote--that good faith const.i.tuted no defence--that there was nothing in the case for the jury to decide, and directed them to find a verdict of guilty; refusing to submit, at the request of the defendant"s counsel, any question to the jury, or to allow the clerk to ask the jurors, severally, whether they a.s.sented to the verdict which the court had directed to be entered. The verdict of guilty was entered by the clerk, as directed by the court, without any express a.s.sent or dissent on the part of the jury. A fine of $100, and costs, was imposed upon the defendant.
Miss ANTHONY insists that in these proceedings, the fundamental principle of criminal law, that no person can be a criminal unless the mind be so--that an honest mistake is not a crime, has been disregarded; that she has been denied her const.i.tutional right of trial by jury, the jury having had no voice in her conviction; that she has been denied her right to have the response of every juror to the question, whether he did or did not a.s.sent to the verdict which the court directed the clerk to enter.
The trial of the three inspectors followed that of Miss ANTHONY, and all were convicted, the court holding, as in the case of Miss ANTHONY, that good faith on their part in receiving the votes was not a protection; which they think a somewhat severe rule of law, inasmuch as the statute provides the same penalty, and in the same sentence, "for knowingly and wilfully receiving the vote of any person not ent.i.tled to vote, or refusing to receive the vote of any person ent.i.tled to vote." The inspectors claim, that according to this exposition of the law, they were placed in a position which required them, without any opportunity to investigate or take advice in regard to the right of any voter whose right was questioned, to decide the question correctly, at the peril of a term in the state"s prison if they made a mistake; and, though this may be a correct exposition of the law in their case, they would be sorry to see it applied to the decisions of any court, not excepting the tribunal by which they were convicted.
The defendant, HALL, is at a loss to know how he could have avoided the penalty, inasmuch as he did all that he could in the way of rejecting the votes, without throttling his co-inspectors, and forcing them to desist from the wrong of receiving them. He is of opinion that by the ruling of the Court, he would have been equally guilty, if he had tried his strength in that direction, and had failed of success.
To preserve a full record of so important a judicial determination, and to enable the friends of the convicted parties to understand precisely the degree of criminality which attaches to them in consequence of these convictions, the following pamphlet has been prepared--giving a more full and accurate statement of the proceedings than can elsewhere be found.
INDICTMENT
AGAINST SUSAN B. ANTHONY.
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
IN AND FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
At a stated session of the District Court of the United States of America, held in and for the Northern District of New York, at the City Hall, in the city of Albany, in the said Northern District of New York, on the third Tuesday of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three, before the Honorable Nathan K. Hall, Judge of the said Court, a.s.signed to keep the peace of the said United States of America, in and for the said District, and also to hear and determine divers Felonies, Misdemeanors and other offenses against the said United States of America, in the said District committed.
Brace Millerd, James D. Wa.s.son, Peter H. Bradt, James McGinty, Henry A. Davis, Loring W. Osborn, Thomas Whitbeck, John Mullen, Samuel G. Harris, Ralph Davis, Matthew Fanning, Abram Kimmey, Derrick B. Van Schoonhoven, Wilhelmus Van Natten, Adam Winne, James Goold, Samuel S. Fowler, Peter D.R. Johnson, Patrick Carroll,
good and lawful men of the said District, then and there sworn and charged to inquire for the said United States of America, and for the body of said District, do, upon their oaths, present, that Susan B.
Anthony now or late of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, with force and arms, etc., to-wit: at and in the first election district of the eighth ward of the city of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, in said Northern District of New York, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, heretofore, to-wit: on the fifth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, at an election duly held at and in the first election district of the said eighth ward of the city of Rochester, in said county, and in said Northern District of New York, which said election was for Representatives in the Congress of the United States, to-wit: a Representative in the Congress of the United States for the State of New York at large, and a Representative in the Congress of the United States for the twenty-ninth Congressional District of the State of New York, said first election district of said eighth ward of said city of Rochester, being then and there a part of said twenty-ninth Congressional District of the State of New York, did knowingly, wrongfully and unlawfully vote for a Representative in the Congress of the United States for the State of New York at large, and for a Representative in the Congress of the United States for said twenty-ninth Congressional District, without having a lawful right to vote in said election district (the said Susan B. Anthony being then and there a person of the female s.e.x,) as she, the said Susan B. Anthony then and there well knew, contrary to the form of the statute of the United States of America in such case made and provided, and against the peace of the United States of America and their dignity.
Second Count--And the jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid do further present that said Susan B. Anthony, now or late of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, with force and arms, etc., to-wit: at and in the first election district of the eighth ward of the city of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, in said Northern District of New York, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, heretofore, to-wit: on the fifth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, at an election duly held at and in the first election district of the said eighth ward, of said city of Rochester, in said county, and in said Northern District of New York, which said election was for Representatives in the Congress of the United States, to-wit: a Representative in the Congress of the United States for the State of New York at large, and a Representative in the Congress of the United States for the twenty-ninth Congressional District of the State of New York, said first election district of said eighth ward, of said city of Rochester, being then and there a part of said twenty-ninth Congressional District of the State of New York, did knowingly, wrongfully and unlawfully vote for a candidate for Representative in the Congress of the United States for the State of New York at large, and for a candidate for Representative in the Congress of the United States for said twenty-ninth Congressional District, without having a lawful right to vote in said first election district (the said Susan B. Anthony being then and there a person of the female s.e.x,) as she, the said Susan B. Anthony then and there well knew, contrary to the form of the statute of the United States of America in such case made and provided, and against the peace of the United States of America and their dignity.
RICHARD CROWLEY,
Attorney of the United States, For the Northern District Of New York.
(Endorsed.) Jan. 24, 1873.
Pleads not guilty.
RICHARD CROWLEY, U.S. Attorney.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
Northern District of New York.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
_vs._
SUSAN B. ANTHONY.
HON. WARD HUNT, Presiding.
APPEARANCES.
For the United States:
HON. RICHARD CROWLEY.
U.S. District Attorney.
For the Defendant:
HON. HENRY R. SELDEN.
JOHN VAN VOORHIS, ESQ.
Tried at Canandaigua. Tuesday and Wednesday, June 17th and 18th, 1873, before Hon. Ward Hunt, and a jury.
Jury impanneled at 2:30 P.M.