History of Woman Suffrage Volume II Part 86

Every man of the commonalty, except infants, insane persons and criminals, is, of common right and the law of G.o.d, a freeman and ent.i.tled to the free enjoyment of liberty. That liberty or freedom consists in having an actual share in the appointment of those who are to frame the laws, and who are to be the guardians of every man's life, property, and peace. For the all of one man is as dear to him as the all of another; and the poor man has an equal right, but more need to have representatives in the Legislature than the rich one. That they who have no voice or vote in the electing of representatives do not enjoy liberty, but are absolutely enslaved to those who have votes and their representatives; for to be enslaved is to have governors whom other men have set over us, and to be subject to laws made by the representatives of others, without having had representatives of our own to give consent in our behalf.

Suppose I read it with the feminine gender:

That women who have no voice nor vote in the electing of representatives, do not enjoy liberty, but are absolutely enslaved to men who have votes and their representatives; for to be enslaved is to have governors whom men have set over us, and to be subject to the laws made by the representatives of men, without having representatives of our own to give consent in our behalf.

And yet one more authority; that of Thomas Paine, than whom not one of the Revolutionary patriots more ably vindicated the principles upon which our government is founded:

The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce man to a state of slavery; for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another; and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case.

The proposal, therefore, to disfranchise any cla.s.s of men is as criminal as the proposal to take away property.

Is anything further needed to prove woman's condition of servitude sufficiently orthodox to ent.i.tle her to the guarantees of the XV. Amendment? Is there a man who will not agree with me, that to talk of freedom without the ballot, is mockery--is slavery--to the women of this Republic, precisely as New England's orator, Wendell Phillips, at the close of the late war, declared it to be to the newly emanc.i.p.ated black men?

I admit that prior to the rebellion, by common consent, the right to enslave, as well as to disfranchise both native and foreign born citizens, was conceded to the States. But the one grand principle, settled by the war and the reconstruction legislation, is the supremacy of National power to protect the citizens of the United States in their right to freedom and the elective franchise, against any and every interference on the part of the several States. And again and again, have the American people a.s.serted the triumph of this principle, by their overwhelming majorities for Lincoln and Grant. The one issue of the last two Presidential elections was, whether the XIV. and XV. Amendments should be considered the irrevocable will of the people; and the decision was, they shall be--and that it is not only the right, but the duty of the National government to protect all United States citizens in the full enjoyment and free exercise of all their privileges and immunities against any attempt of any State to deny or abridge. And in this conclusion Republicans and Democrats alike agree.

Senator FRELINGHUYSEN said--The heresy of State rights has been completely buried in these amendments, that as amended, the Const.i.tution confers not only National but State citizenship upon all persons born or naturalized within our limits.

The CALL for the NATIONAL REPUBLICAN Convention said--Equal suffrage has been engrafted on the National Const.i.tution; the privileges and immunities of American citizenship have become a part of the organic law.

The NATIONAL REPUBLICAN Platform said--Complete liberty and exact equality in the enjoyment of all civil, political, and public rights, should be established and maintained throughout the Union by efficient and appropriate State and Federal legislation.

If these a.s.sertions mean anything, it is that Congress should pa.s.s a law compelling the States to protect women in their equal political rights, and that the States should enact laws making it the duty of inspectors of election to receive women's votes on precisely the same conditions they do those of men.

Judge Stanley Matthews--a substantial Ohio Democrat--in his preliminary speech at the Cincinnati Convention, said most emphatically:

The Const.i.tutional Amendments have established the political equality of all citizens before the law.

President Grant, in his message to Congress March 30, 1870, on the adoption of the XV. Amendment, said:

A measure which makes at once four millions of people voters, is indeed a measure of greater importance than any act of the kind from the foundation of the Government to the present time.

How could the four million negroes be made voters if the two million women were not included?

The California State Republican Convention said:

Among the many practical and substantial triumphs of the principles achieved by the Republican party during the past twelve years, we may enumerate with pride and pleasure, the prohibiting of any State from abridging the privileges of any citizen of the Republic, the declaring the civil and political equality of every citizen, and the establishing of all these principles in the Federal Const.i.tution by amendments thereto, as the permanent law.

Benjamin F. Butler, in a recent letter to me said:

I do not believe anybody in Congress doubts that the Const.i.tution authorizes the right of women to vote, precisely as it authorizes trial by jury and many other like rights guaranteed to citizens. And again, It is not laws we want; there are plenty of laws--good enough, too.

Administrative ability to enforce law is the great want of the age, in this country especially. Everybody talks of law, law. If everybody would insist on the enforcement of law, the government would stand on a firmer basis, and questions would settle themselves.

And it is upon this just interpretation of the United States Const.i.tution that our National Woman Suffrage a.s.sociation, which celebrates the twenty-fifth anniversary of the woman's rights movement, in New York on the 6th of May next, has based all its arguments and action the past three years. We no longer pet.i.tion Legislature or Congress to give us the right to vote. We appeal to the women everywhere to exercise their too long neglected "citizen's right to vote." We appeal to the inspectors of election everywhere to receive the votes of all United States citizens, as it is their duty to do. We appeal to United States commissioners and marshals to arrest the inspectors who reject the names and votes of United States citizens, as it is their duty to do, and leave those alone who, like our eighth ward inspectors, perform their duties faithfully and well. We ask the juries to fail to return verdicts of "guilty" against honest, law-abiding, tax-paying United States citizens for offering their votes at our elections; or against intelligent, worthy young men, inspectors of election, for receiving and counting such citizens'

votes. We ask the judges to render true and unprejudiced opinions of the law, and wherever there is room for a doubt to give its benefit on the side of liberty and equality to women, remembering that

The true rule of interpretation under our National Const.i.tution, especially since its Amendments, is that anything for human rights is const.i.tutional, everything against human rights unconst.i.tutional.

And it is on this line that we propose to fight our battle for the ballot--peaceably, but nevertheless persistently to complete triumph, when all United States citizens shall be recognized as equals before the law.

Miss Anthony's trial opened the morning of the 18th of June. The lovely village of Canandaigua, with its placid lake reflecting the soft summer sky, gave no evidence of the great event that was to make the day and the place memorable in history. All was still, the usual peaceful atmosphere pervaded that conservative town, and with the exception of a small group of men and women in earnest conversation at the hotel, few there were who thought or cared about the great principles of government involved in the pending trial. When the tolling of the Court House bell announced that the hour had arrived, Miss Anthony, her counsel and friends, promptly appeared, and were soon followed by the District Attorney and Judge, representing the power of the United States,--Miss Anthony to stand as a criminal before the bar of her country for having dared to exercise a freeman's right of self-government, and that country through its Judiciary to falsify its grand declarations as to the equality of its citizens by a verdict of guilty because of s.e.x.

On the bench sat Judge Hunt, a small-brained, pale-faced, prim-looking man, enveloped in a faultless suit of black broadcloth, and a snowy white neck-tie. This was the first criminal case he had been called on to try since his appointment, and with remarkable forethought, he had penned his decision before hearing it. At times by his side sat Judge Hall, who had declared himself unwilling to try the suit. Within the bar sat Miss Anthony and counsel, the Hon. Henry R. Selden and Hon.

John Van Voorhis, several of the ladies who had voted,[169] Mrs. Gage, and the United States District Attorney. Upon the right sat the jury, while all the remaining s.p.a.ce was crowded with curious and anxious listeners, among whom were many men[170] prominent in public life.

The indictment[171] presented against Miss Anthony will be regarded by the future historian as a remarkable doc.u.ment to have originated in a republic against one of its native-born citizens guilty of no crime.

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 impaneled at 2:30 P.M.

Mr. Crowley opened the case as follows:

_May it please the Court and Gentlemen of the Jury:_

On the 5th of November, 1872, there was held in this State, as well as in other States of the Union, a general election for different officers, and among those, for candidates to represent several districts of this State in the Congress of the United States. The defendant, Miss Susan B. Anthony, at that time resided in the city of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, Northern District of New York, and upon the 5th day of November, 1872, she voted for a representative in the Congress of the United States, to represent the 29th Congressional District of this State, and also for a representative at large for the State of New York, to represent the State in the Congress of the United States. At that time she was a woman. I suppose there will be no question about that. The question in this case, if there be a question of fact about it at all, will, in my judgment, be rather a question of law than one of fact. I suppose that there will be no question of fact, substantially, in the case when all of the evidence is out, and it will be for you to decide under the charge for his honor, the Judge, whether or not the defendant committed the offense of voting for a representative in Congress upon that occasion. We think, on the part of the Government, that there is no question about it either one way or the other, neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, and that whatever Miss Anthony's intentions may have been--whether they were good or otherwise--she did not have a right to vote upon that question, and if she did vote without having a lawful right to vote, then there is no question but what she is guilty of violating a law of the United States in that behalf enacted by the Congress of the United States.

We don't claim in this case, gentlemen, that Miss Anthony is of that cla.s.s of people who go about "repeating." We don't claim that she went from place to place for the purpose of offering her vote. But we do claim that upon the 5th of November, 1872, she voted, and whether she believed that she had a right to vote or not, it being a question of law, that she is within the statute.

Congress in 1870 pa.s.sed the following statute: (Reads 19th Section of the Act of 1870, page 144, 16th statutes at large.) It is not necessary for me, gentlemen, at this stage of the case, to state all the facts which will be proven on the part of the Government. I shall leave that to be shown by the evidence and by the witnesses, and if any question of law shall arise his Honor will undoubtedly give you instructions as he shall deem proper.

Conceded, that on the 5th day of November, 1872, Miss Susan B.

Anthony was a woman.

Beverly W. Jones, a witness, called in behalf of the United States, testified as follows: Examined by Mr. Crowley:

_Q._ Mr. Jones, where do you reside? _A._ 8th Ward, Rochester.

_Q._ Where were you living on the 5th of November, 1872? _A._ Same place.

_Q._ Do you know the defendant, Miss Susan B. Anthony? _A._ Yes, sir.

_Q._ In what capacity were you acting upon that day, if any, in relation to elections? _A._ Inspector of election.

_Q._ Into how many election districts is the 8th Ward divided, if it contains more than one? _A._ Two, sir.

_Q._ In what election district were you inspector of elections?

_A._ The first district.

_Q._ Who were inspectors with you? _A._ Edwin T. Marsh and William B. Hall.

_Q._ Had the Board of Inspectors been regularly organized? _A._ Yes, sir.

_Q._ Upon the 5th day of November, did the defendant, Susan B.

Anthony, vote in the first election district of the 8th Ward of the city of Rochester?

_A._ Yes, sir.

_Q._ Did you see her vote? _A._ Yes, sir.

_Q._ Will you state to the jury what tickets she voted, whether State, a.s.sembly, Congress and Electoral? Objected to as calling for a conclusion.