An Account of the Proceedings on the Trial of Susan B. Anthony, on the Charge of Illegal Voting, at the Presidential Election in Nov., 1872, and on the Trial of Beverly W. Jones, Edwin T. Marsh, and William B. Hall, the Inspectors of Election by Whom Her
ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
SUSAN B. ANTHONY,
Charge of Illegal Voting,
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN NOV., 1872,
AND ON THE
BEVERLY W. JONES, EDWIN T. MARSH
AND WILLIAM B. HALL,
The Inspectors of Election by whom her Vote was Received.
DAILY DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE BOOK PRINT, 3 WEST MAIN
Anthony, S.B., Indictment,
Her speech on receiving her sentence,
Her campaign speech,
Crowley, Richard, Opening speech in Miss Anthony's case,
Gage, Mrs. M. Joslyn, Speech of
Hall, Wm. B., Indictment,
Hooker, John, Article on Judge Hunt and the Right of Trial by Jury,
Hunt, Judge, Opinion against Miss Anthony,
His refusal to submit her case to the jury,
His refusal to permit the jury to be polled,
His sentence of Miss Anthony,
His direction to the jury in the cases of Jones, Hall and Marsh,
Trial by jury "a matter of form",
Jones, Beverly W., Indictment,
Remarks on receiving sentence,
Marsh, Edwin T., Indictment,
Remarks on being sentenced,
Selden, H.R., Opening speech in Miss Anthony's case,
Argument in her case,
Argument on motion for new trial,
Van Voorhis, John, Argument of motion to quash the indictment
in the case of Jones, Marsh and Hall,
Argument in the case of Jones, Marsh and Hall on the merits,
Motion for new trial in the case of Jones, Marsh and Hall,
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 ofelection, claiming the right to vote, as among the privileges andimmunities secured to them as citizens by the fourteenth amendment tothe Constitution of the United States. The inspectors, Jones,Hall, and Marsh, by a majority, decided in favor ofreceiving the offered votes, against the dissent of Hall, andthey were received and deposited in the ballot box. For this act, thewomen, fourteen in number, were arrested and held to bail, andindictments were found against them severally, under the 19th Section ofthe Act of Congress of May 30th, 1870, (16 St. at L. 144.) charging themwith the offense of "knowingly voting without having a lawful right tovote." The three inspectors were also arrested, but only two of themwere held to bail, Hall having been discharged by theCommissioner on whose warrant they were arrested. All three, howeverwere jointly indicted under the same statute—for having "knowingly andwilfully received the votes of persons not entitled to vote."
Of the women voters, the case of Miss Anthony alone was broughtto trial, a nolle prosequi having been entered upon the otherindictments. Upon the trial of Miss Anthony before the U.S.Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York, at Canandaigua, inJune, 1873, it was proved that before offering her vote she was advisedby her counsel that she had a right to vote; and that she entertained nodoubt, at the time of voting, that she was entitled to vote. It wasclaimed in her behalf:
I. That she was legally entitled to vote.
II. That if she was not so entitled, but voted in good faith in thebelief 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 faithconstituted no defence—that there was nothing in the case for the juryto decide, and directed them to find a verdict of guilty; refusing tosubmit, at the request of the defendant's counsel, any question to thejury, or to allow the clerk to ask the jurors, severally, whether theyassented to the verdict which the court had directed to be entered. Theverdict of guilty was entered by the clerk, as directed by the court,without any express assent 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 fundamentalprinciple of criminal law, that no person can be a criminal unless themind be so—that an honest mistake is not a crime, has been disregarded;that she has been denied her constitutional right of trial by jury, thejury having had no voice in her conviction; that she has been denied herright to have the response of every juror to the question, whether hedid or did not assent to the verdict which the court directed the clerkto enter.
The trial of the three inspectors followed that of MissAnthony, and all were convicted, the court holding, as in thecase of Miss Anthony, that good faith on their part inreceiving the votes was not a protection; which they think a somewhatsevere rule of law, inasmuch as the statute provides the same penalty,and in the same sentence, "for knowingly and wilfully receiving the voteof any person not entitled to vote, or refusing to receive the vote ofany person entitled to vote." The inspectors claim, that according tothis exposition of the law, they were placed in a position whichrequired them, without any opportunity to investigate or take advice inregard to the right of any voter whose right was questioned, to decidethe question correctly, at the peril of a term in the state's prison ifthey made a mistake; and, though this may be a correct exposition of thelaw in their case, they would be sorry to see it applied to thedecisions of any court, not excepting the tribunal by which they wereconvicted.
The defendant, Hall, is at a loss to know how he could haveavoided the penalty, inasmuch as he did all that he could in the way ofrejecting the votes, without throttling his co-inspectors, and forcingthem to desist from the wrong of receiving them. He is of opinion thatby the ruling of the Court, he would have been equally guilty, if he hadtried his strength in that direction, and had failed of success.
To preserve a full record of so important a judicial determination, andto enable the friends of the convicted parties to understand preciselythe degree of criminality which attaches to them in consequence of theseconvictions, the following pamphlet has been prepared—giving a morefull and accurate statement of the proceedings than can elsewhere befound.
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 ofAmerica, held in and for the Northern District of New York, at the CityHall, 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 thousandeight hundred and seventy-three, before the Honorable Nathan K. Hall,Judge of the said Court, assigned to keep the peace of the said UnitedStates of America, in and for the said District, and also to hear anddetermine divers Felonies, Misdemeanors and other offenses against thesaid United States of America, in the said District committed.
James D. Wasson,
Peter H. Bradt,
Henry A. Davis,
Loring W. Osborn,
Samuel G. Harris,
Derrick B. Van Schoonhoven,
Wilhelmus Van Natten,
Samuel S. Fowler,
Peter D.R. Johnson,
good and lawful men of the said District, then and there sworn andcharged to inquire for the said United States of America, and for thebody of said District, do, upon their oaths, present, that Susan B.Anthony now or late of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, with forceand arms, etc., to-wit: at and in the first election district of theeighth ward of the city of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, in saidNorthern District of New York, and within the jurisdiction of thisCourt, heretofore, to-wit: on the fifth day of November, in the year ofour Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, at an election dulyheld at and in the first election district of the said eighth ward ofthe city of Rochester, in said county, and in said Northern District ofNew York, which said election was for Representatives in the Congress ofthe United States, to-wit: a Representative in the Congress of theUnited States for the State of New York at large, and a Representativein the Congress of the United States for the twenty-ninth CongressionalDistrict of the State of New York, said first election district of saideighth ward of said city of Rochester, being then and there a part ofsaid twenty-ninth Congressional District of the State of New York, didknowingly, wrongfully and unlawfully vote for a Representative in theCongress of the United States for the State of New York at large, andfor a Representative in the Congress of the United States for saidtwenty-ninth Congressional District, without having a lawful right tovote in said election district (the said Susan B. Anthony being then andthere a person of the female sex,) as she, the said Susan B. Anthonythen and there well knew, contrary to the form of the statute of theUnited States of America in such case made and provided, and against thepeace of the United States of America and their dignity.
Second Count—And the jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid dofurther present that said Susan B. Anthony, now or late of Rochester, inthe county of Monroe, with force and arms, etc., to-wit: at and in thefirst election district of the eighth ward of the city of Rochester, inthe county of Monroe, in said Northern District of New York, and withinthe jurisdiction of this Court, heretofore, to-wit: on the fifth day ofNovember, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred andseventy-two, at an election duly held at and in the first electiondistrict of the said eighth ward, of said city of Rochester, in saidcounty, and in said Northern District of New York, which said electionwas for Representatives in the Congress of the United States, to-wit: aRepresentative in the Congress of the United States for the State of NewYork at large, and a Representative in the Congress of the United Statesfor the twenty-ninth Congressional District of the State of New York,said first election district of said eighth ward, of said city ofRochester, being then and there a part of said twenty-ninthCongressional District of the State of New York, did knowingly,wrongfully and unlawfully vote for a candidate for Representative in theCongress of the United States for the State of New York at large, andfor a candidate for Representative in the Congress of the United Statesfor said twenty-ninth Congressional District, without having a lawfulright to vote in said first election district (the said Susan B. Anthonybeing then and there a person of the female sex,) as she, the saidSusan B. Anthony then and there well knew, contrary to the form of thestatute 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.
Attorney of the United States,
For the Northern District Of New York.
(Endorsed.) Jan. 24, 1873.
Pleads not guilty.
Northern District of New York.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SUSAN B. ANTHONY.
Hon. WARD HUNT, Presiding.
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.