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_, Sat.u.r.day, 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 ill.u.s.tration 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 canva.s.s 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 pa.s.sed 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 a.s.sumes 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 att.i.tude, 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 circ.u.mstances 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 s.e.x 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 Const.i.tution 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" a.s.sociation 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 a.s.sured 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 const.i.tutions of men, made for the degradation and subjugation of my whole s.e.x; 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-b.a.l.l.s for the mult.i.tude. 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 Const.i.tution 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 a.s.sertion 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 Const.i.tution 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 pet.i.tion 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 const.i.tutional 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 grat.i.tude 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 G.o.dspeed to our co-laborer, Susan B. Anthony, for the courage and persistence shown during her trial, and thank her for her a.s.surance 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 p.r.o.nounced 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.