SUSAN B. ANTHONY,

"This is in the nature of it, an action for misbehavior by a public officer in his duty. Now I think, that it cannot be called a misbehavior,unless maliciously and wilfully done, and that the action will not lie for a mistake in law.The case of the bridge master is in point [Bul N.P. 64.]. It is there said, that an action on the case lies against a ministerial officer forwilfulmisbehavior, as denying a poll for one who is a candidate for an elective office, such as bridge master &c." "In all the cases put, the misbehavior must bewilful and by wilfulI understandcontrary to a man's own conviction. Therefore I think from the opening of counsel, this is not a wilful refusal of the vote.... In very few instances is an officer answerable for what he does to the best of his judgment, in cases where he is compelled to act. But the action lies where the officer has an option whether he will act or not. Besides, I think, that if an action were to be brought upon every occasion of this kind by every person whose vote was refused, it would be such an inconvenience as the law would not endure. A returning officer in such a case would be in a most perilous situation.This gentleman was put in a situation where he was bound to act; and if he acted to the best of his judgment it would be a great hardship that he should be answerable for the consequences, even though he is mistaken in a point of law.It was a very material observation of Mr. Gibbs, that the words of the resolution of theHouse of LordsinAshby v. Whitefollowed the words of the statute of William III. For if that statute were declaratory of the common law, as it purports to be ['Be it enacted and declared that all false returns wilfully made' &c.] and an action would not lie at common law for a false return, unless the return be proved to have been made maliciously, as well as falsely, it should seem, by a parity of reasoning, that a person whose vote is refused by a returning officer, cannot maintain an action against him, unless the refusalbe proved to have been wilful and malicious. And if malice were necessary before the statute by the common law, and since by the statute which is declaratory thereof, to sustain an action for a false return which includes perhaps the votes of all, it seems equally necessary in an action like the present where the injury complained of is to one only."I do not mean to say, that in this kind of action, it is necessary to proveexpressmalice. It is sufficient if malice may be implied from the conduct of the officer; as if he had decided contrary to a last resolution of the House of Commons. ThereI should leave it to the jury to imply malice. But taking allthe circumstances of this case together, malice can in no shape be imputed to the defendant. The plaintiff may have a right to vote, but that depends upon an intricate question of law, with respect to burgage tenures; the right itself founded on ancient documents and usages, and not acted upon for many years...."From these grounds, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the defendant has acted wilfully and maliciously in refusing the plaintiff's vote; and unless that be so he is not liable in this action.... "But without determining whether the statute be declaratory of the common law, or not; if not, the case rests on that ofAshby v. White. Now all the debates and arguments in that casego upon the malice; and all those who have acted on that determination since have considered that the refusal must bewilful and maliciousin order to support the action...."And in my opinion, it cannot be said, that because an officer is mistaken in a point of law, this action will lie against him.... It has also been said, that this is not like a case where a burdensome office is thrown upon a man, without his consent, wherein he is compellable to act; for that here the defendant has chosen to become a member of a corporation by which he had put himself in a situation to become a returning officer, and therefore that he isbound to understand the whole law as far as it relates to his public situation, and is answerable for any determination he may make contrary to that law. But I much doubt whether that rule be generally true; and in the present instance I am clearly of opinion that the want of malice is a full defense."

"I do not mean to say, that in this kind of action, it is necessary to proveexpressmalice. It is sufficient if malice may be implied from the conduct of the officer; as if he had decided contrary to a last resolution of the House of Commons. ThereI should leave it to the jury to imply malice. But taking allthe circumstances of this case together, malice can in no shape be imputed to the defendant. The plaintiff may have a right to vote, but that depends upon an intricate question of law, with respect to burgage tenures; the right itself founded on ancient documents and usages, and not acted upon for many years....

"From these grounds, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the defendant has acted wilfully and maliciously in refusing the plaintiff's vote; and unless that be so he is not liable in this action.

... "But without determining whether the statute be declaratory of the common law, or not; if not, the case rests on that ofAshby v. White. Now all the debates and arguments in that casego upon the malice; and all those who have acted on that determination since have considered that the refusal must bewilful and maliciousin order to support the action....

"And in my opinion, it cannot be said, that because an officer is mistaken in a point of law, this action will lie against him.... It has also been said, that this is not like a case where a burdensome office is thrown upon a man, without his consent, wherein he is compellable to act; for that here the defendant has chosen to become a member of a corporation by which he had put himself in a situation to become a returning officer, and therefore that he isbound to understand the whole law as far as it relates to his public situation, and is answerable for any determination he may make contrary to that law. But I much doubt whether that rule be generally true; and in the present instance I am clearly of opinion that the want of malice is a full defense."

Lawrence, J., sat with Wilson.

The plaintiff was nonsuited and no new trial was moved for.

Bernardiston v. Some(2 Lev. 114, 1 East. 586, note b.) was an action against the sheriff of Suffolk, charging that the defendant, intending to deprive him of the office of Knight of the Shire, made a double return. Upon a trial at bar, Twysden, Rainsford, and Wylie Js. held, and so directed the jury, that if the return was mademaliciously, they ought to find for the plaintiff, which they did and gave him £800. On motion in arrest of judgment, Hale, C.J., being in court; he, Twysden & Wylie, Js. held that for as much as the return was laid to befalso et malitiose et ea intentione, to put the plaintiff to charge and expense, and so found by the jury, the action lay. Rainsford, J., doubted. But notwithstanding this charge of malice, judgment was reversedin Cam scacc (vide 3 Lev. 30) and that judgment of reversal was affirmed in Parliament. Lord Chief justice North's first reason against the action was, because the sheriff as to declaring the Mayoralty isjudgeand no action will lie against a judge for what he does judicially, though it should be laidfalso malitiose et scienter. This reversal occasioned the passage of the statute (7 and 8 W. III c. 7) which gives an action against the returning officer, for all false returns "wilfully made, and for double returnsfalsely, wilfully and maliciously made."

Groenvelt v. Burwell & al(1 Salk. 396, S.C. 2 Ld Ray. 230, Comyns 76.) In this case, the Censors of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, in London, were empowered to inspect, govern and censure, all practices of physic in London—and to punish by fine and imprisonment. They convicted the plaintiff of administering noxious medicines, and fined him £20, and imprisonment 12 months. Being taken in execution, he brought trespass against the Censors. It was held

1. That the Censors had judicial power.

2. That being judges of the matter, what they had adjudged was not traversable. That the plaintiff could not be permitted to gainsay, what the Censors had said by their judgment—that the medicines were noxious.

3. Though the medicines were really good, yet no action lies against the Censors, because it is a wrong judgment in a matter within the limits of their jurisdiction; and a judge is not answerable, either to the King or the party, for the mistakes or errors of his judgment in a matter of which he has jurisdiction; It would expose the justice of the nation, andno man would execute the office upon peril of being arraigned by action or indictment for every judgment he pronounces.

All that I have quoted from the English cases and our own to show thatmalicemust be proven to make out the offense,is expressly contained in thestatute under which this indictment is framed. The words are (Sec. 19) "shall knowingly andwilfullyreceive the vote of any person not entitled to vote." (And Section 20 as amended) "If any such officer shall knowingly andwilfullyregister, as a voter any person not entitled to vote."

And wilfully means, to use the language of Mr. Justice Wilson, "contrary to a man's own conviction."

If it be said that the defendants must be presumed to know the law, that is answered above by the quotations from the opinion of Mr. Justice Wilson.

Besides when the statute speaks of "knowledge," aside from the expression "wilfully" it meansknowledgeas afact—not anyforced presumption of knowledgeagainst the clear facts of the case.

To this extent andto this extent only, does the presumption that defendants were bound to know the law go, viz: They were bound to know that if theyas a fact"knowingly and wilfully registered as a voter any person not entitled to be registered" or "knowingly and wilfully received the vote of any person not entitled to vote," in either case they were liable to the penalty; and they could not be allowed to urge in their defense any ignorance thatthe law made those facts criminal.

Here is a total absence of any pretence of malice. The defendants acted honestly and according to their best judgment. This is conceded. The most that can be said against them is, that they have erred in judgment. They are not lawyers, nor skilled in the law. They had presented to them a legal question which, to say the least, has puzzled some of the ablest legal minds of the nation. The penalty is the same, on which ever side they err. If they can be convicted of crime, a test must be imposed upon them, which no judge in the land could stand.

The defendants should be discharged by this Court.

Mr. Crowley then rose to make his argument, when the Court said:

The Court: I don't think it is necessary for you to spend time in argument, Mr. Crowley. I think upon the last authority cited by the counsel there is no defense in this case. It is entirely clear that where there is a distinct judicial act, the party performing the judicial act is not responsible, civilly or criminally, unless corruption is proven, and in many cases not when corruption is proven. But where the act is not judicial in its character—where there is no discretion—then there is no legal protection. That is the law, as laid down in the authority last quoted, and the authority quoted by Judge Selden in his opinion. It is undoubtedly good law. They hold expressly in that case that the inspectors are administrative officers, and not judicial officers.

Now, this is the point in the case, in my view of it: If there was any case in which a female was entitled to vote, then it would be a subject of examination. If a female over the age of 21 was entitled to vote, then it would be within the judicial authority of the inspectors to examine and determine whether in the given case the female came within that provision. If a married woman was entitled to vote, or if a married woman was not entitled to vote, and a single woman was entitled to vote, I think the inspectors would have a right in a case before them, to judge upon the evidence whether the person before them was married or single. If they decided erroneously, their judicial character would protect them. But under the law of this state, as it stands, under no circumstances is a woman entitled to vote. When Miss Anthony, Mrs. Leyden and the other ladies came there and presented themselves for registry, and presented themselves to offer their votes, when it appeared that they were women—that they were of the female sex—the power and authority of the inspectors was at an end. When they act upon a subject upon which they have no discretion, I think there is no judicial authority. There is a large range of discretion in regard to the votes offered by the male sex. If a man offers his vote, there is a question whether he is a minor—whether he is 21 years of age. The subject is within their jurisdiction. If they decide correctly, it is well; if they decide erroneously, they act judicially, and are not liable. If the question is whether the person presenting his vote is a foreigner or naturalized, or whether he has been a resident of the state or district for a sufficient length of time, the subject is all within their jurisdiction, and they have a right to decide, and are protected if they decide wrong.

But upon the view which has been taken of this question of the right of females to vote, by the United States Court at Washington, and by the adjudication which was made this morning, upon this subject there is no discretion, and therefore I must hold that it affords no protection.

In that view of the case, is there anything to go to the jury?

Mr. Van Voorhis: Yes, your Honor.

The Court: What?

Mr. Van Voorhis: The jury must pass upon the whole case, and particularly as to whether any ballots were received for representative in Congress, or candidates for representative in Congress, and whether the defendants acted wilfully and maliciously.

The Court: It is too plain to argue that.

Mr. Van Voorhis: There is nothing but circumstantial evidence.

The Court: Your own witness testified to it.

Mr. Van Voorhis: But "knowingly," your Honor, implies knowing that it is a vote for representative in Congress.

The Court: That comes within the decision of the question of law. I don't see that there is anything to go to the jury.

Mr. Van Voorhis: I cannot take your Honor's view of the case, but of course must submit to it. We ask to go to the jury upon this whole case, and claim that in this case, as in all criminal cases, the right of trial by jury is made inviolate by the constitution—that the Court has no power to take it from the jury.

The Court: I am going to submit it to the jury.

Gentlemen of the Jury:

This case is now before you upon the evidence as it stands, and I shall leave the case with you to decide—

Mr. Van Voorhis: I claim the right to address the jury.

The Court: I don't think there is anything upon which you can legitimately address the jury.

Gentlemen, the defendants are charged with knowingly, willfully and wrongfully receiving the votes of the ladies whose names are mentioned, in November last, in the City of Rochester. They are charged in the same indictment with willfully and improperly registering those ladies. I decided in the case this morning, which many of you heard, probably, that under the law as it stands the ladies who offered their votes had no right to vote whatever. I repeat that decision, and I charge you that they had no right to offer their votes. They having no right to offer their votes, the inspectors of election ought not to receive them. The additional question exists in this case whether the fact that they acted as inspectors will relieve them from the charge in this case. You have heard the views which I have given upon that. I think they are administrative officers. I charge you that they are administrative and ministerial officers in this respect, that they are not judicial officers whose action protects them, and that therefore they are liable in this case. But, instead of doing as I did in the case this morning—directing a verdict—I submit the case to you with these instructions, and you can decide it here, or you may go out.

Mr. Van Voorhis: I ask your Honor to instruct the jury that if they find these inspectors acted honestly, in accordance with their best judgment, they should be acquitted.

The Court: I have expressly ruled to the contrary of that, gentlemen; that that makes no difference.

Mr. Van Voorhis: And that in this country—under the laws of this country—

The Court: That is enough—you need not argue it, Mr. Van Voorhis.

Mr. Van Voorhis: Then I ask your Honor to charge the jury that they must find the fact that these inspectors received the votes of these persons knowingly, and that such votes were votes for some person for member of Congress, there being in the case no evidence that any man was voted for, for member of Congress, and there being no evidence except that secret ballots were received; that the jury have a right to find for the defendants, if they choose.

The Court: I charge the jury that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment, upon this point.

Mr. Van Voorhis: I ask your Honor also to charge the jury that there is sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict of not guilty.

The Court: I cannot charge that.

Mr. Van Voorhis: Then why should it go to the jury?

The Court: As a matter of form.

Mr. Van Voorhis: If the jury should find a verdict of not guilty, could your Honor set it aside?

The Court: I will debate that with you when the occasion arises.

Gentlemen, you may deliberate here, or retire, as you choose.

The jury retired for consultation, and the Court took a recess until 7 P.M.

The Court re-convened at 7 o'clock, when the clerk called the jury, and asked them if they had agreed upon their verdict.

The foreman replied in the negative, whereupon the Court said:

The Court: Is there anything upon which I can give you any advice, gentlemen, or any information?

A Juror: We stand 11 for conviction, and 1 opposed.

The Court: If that gentleman desires to ask any questions in respect to the questions of law, or the facts in the case, I will give him any information he desires. (No response from the jury.) It is quite proper, if any gentleman has any doubt about anything, either as to the law or the facts, that he should state it to the Court. Counsel are both present, and I can give such information as is correct.

A Juror: I don't wish to ask any questions.

The Court: Then you may retire again, gentlemen. The Court will adjourn until to-morrow morning.

The jury retired, and after an absence of about ten minutes returned into court.

The clerk called the names of the jury and then said:

The Clerk: Gentlemen, have you agreed upon your verdict?

The Foreman: We have.

The Clerk: How say you, do you find the prisoners at the bar guilty of the offense whereof they stand indicted, or not guilty?

The Foreman: Guilty.

The Clerk: Hearken to your verdict as it stands recorded by the Court. You say you find the prisoners at the bar guilty of the offense whereof they stand indicted, and so say you all.

Mr. Van Voorhis: I ask that the jury be polled.

The clerk polled the jury, each juror answering in the affirmative to the question, "Is this your verdict?"

On the next day, June 19, 1873, the counsel for the defendants, Mr. John Van Voorhis, made a motion to the Court, for a new trial in behalf of Beverly W. Jones, Edwin T. Marsh and William B. Hall. The argument was oral and is not given, but the following are the grounds of the motion:

1. The indictment contains no sufficient statement of any crime under the Acts of Congress, upon which it is framed.

2. The Court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the offense.

3. It was an error, for which a new trial should be granted, to refuse the defendants the fundamental right to address the jury, through their counsel. This is a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. (See Article VI. of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 1 Graham & Waterman on New Trials, pages 682, 683 and 684.)

4. The defendants were substantially deprived of the right of jury trial. The instructions of the Court to the jury were imperative. They were equivalent to a direction to find a verdict of guilty. It was said by the Court in the hearing of the jury, that the case was submitted to the jury "as a matter of form." The jury was not at liberty to exercise its own judgment upon the evidence, and without committing a gross discourtesy to the Court, could render no verdict except that of guilty.

5. Admitting that the defendants acted without malice, or any corrupt motive, and in accordance with their best judgments, and in perfect good faith, it was error to charge that that was no defense.

6. The defendants are admitted to have acted in accordance with their duty as defined by the laws of New York (1 R.S., Edmond's Ed., pp. 126-127, sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19) as construed by the Court of Appeals. (People vs. Pease, 27 N.Y. 45.)

They are administrative officers and bound to regard only the evidence which the Statute prescribes. They are not clothed with the power, to reject the vote of a person who has furnished the evidence, which the law requires, of right to vote, on what they or either of them might know, as to the truth or falsity of such evidences. They have no discretion, and must perform their duty, as it is defined by the laws of New York and the decisions of her Courts.

7. The defendant, William B. Hall, has been tried and convicted in his absence from the Court. This is an error fatal to the conviction in his case.

The Court denied the motion.

The Court then asked the defendants if they had anything to say why sentence should not be pronounced, in response to which Beverly W. Jones said:

"Your honor has pronounced me guilty of crime; the jury had but little to do with it. In the performance of my duties as an inspector of election, which position I have held for the last four years, I acted conscientiously, faithfully and according to the best of my judgment and ability. I did not believe that I had a right to reject the ballot of a citizen who offered to vote, and who took the preliminary and general oaths; and answered all questions prescribed by law. The instructions furnished me by the State authorities declared that I had no such right. As far as the registry of the names is concerned, they would never have been placed upon the registry, if it had not been for Daniel Warner, the Democratic federal Supervisor of elections, appointed by this Court, who not only advised the registry, but addressed us, saying, 'Young men, do you know the penalty of the law if you refuse to register these names?' And after discharging my duties faithfully and honestly and to the best of my ability, if it is to vindicate the law that I am to be imprisoned, I willingly submit to the penalty."

And Edwin T. Marsh said:

"In October last, just previous to the time fixed for the sitting of the Board of Registrars in the first district of the eighth ward of Rochester, a vacancy occurred. I was solicited to act, and consenting, was duly appointed by the Common council.

"I had never given the matter a thought until called to the position, and as a consequence knew nothing of the law. On the morning of the first day of the last session of the Board, Miss Anthony and other women presented themselves and claimed the right to be registered. So far as I knew, the question of woman suffrage had never come up in that shape before. We were in a position where we could take no middle course.

"Decide which way we might, we were liable to prosecution. We devoted all the time to acquiring information on the subject, that our duties as Registrars would allow.

"We were expected, it seems, to make an infallible decision, inside of two days, of a question in regard to which some of the best minds of the country are divided. The influences by which we were surrounded, were nearly all in unison with the course we took. I believed then, and believe now, that we actedlawfully.

"I faithfully discharged the duties of my office, according to the best of my ability, in strict compliance with the oath administered to me. I consider the argument of our counsel unanswered and unanswerable."

"The verdict is not the verdict of the jury.

"I amnot guiltyof the charge."

The Court then sentenced the defendants to pay a fine of $25 each, and the costs of the prosecution.

Delivered 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 in June, 1873.

Friends and Fellow-citizens: I stand before you to-night, under indictment for the alleged crime of having voted at the last Presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote. It shall be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting, I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised mycitizen's right, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any State to deny.

Our democratic-republican government is based on the idea of the natural right of every individual member thereof to a voice and a vote in making and executing the laws. We assert the province of government to be to secure the people in the enjoyment of their unalienable rights. We throw to the winds the old dogma that governments can give rights. Before governments were organized, no one denies that each individual possessed the right to protect his own life, liberty and property. And when 100 or 1,000,000 people enter into a free government, they do not barter away their natural rights; they simply pledge themselves to protect each other in the enjoyment of them, through prescribed judicial and legislative tribunals. They agree to abandon the methods of brute force in the adjustment of their differences, and adopt those of civilization.

Nor can you find a word in any of the grand documents left us by the fathers that assumes for government the power to create or to confer rights. The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the constitutions of the several states and the organic laws of the territories, all alike propose to protect the people in the exercise of their God-given rights. Not one of them pretends to bestow rights.

"All men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Here is no shadow of government authority over rights, nor exclusion of any class from their full and equal enjoyment. Here is pronounced the right of all men, and "consequently," as the Quaker preacher said, "of all women," to a voice in the government. And here, in this very first paragraph of the declaration, is the assertion of the natural right of all to the ballot; for, how can "the consent of the governed" be given, if the right to vote be denied. Again:

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Surely, the right of the whole people to vote is here clearly implied. For however destructive to their happiness this government might become, a disfranchised class could neither alter nor abolish it, nor institute a new one, except by the old brute force method of insurrection and rebellion. One-half of the people of this nation to-day are utterly powerless to blot from the statute books an unjust law, or to write there a new and a just one. The women, dissatisfied as they are with this form of government, that enforces taxation without representation,—that compels them to obey laws to which they have never given their consent,—that imprisons and hangs them without a trial by a jury of their peers, that robs them, in marriage, of the custody of their own persons, wages and children,—are this half of the people left wholly at the mercy of the other half, in direct violation of the spirit and letter of the declarations of the framers of this government, every one of which was based on the immutable principle of equal rights to all. By those declarations, kings, priests, popes, aristocrats, were all alike dethroned, and placed on a common level, politically, with the lowliest born subject or serf. By them, too, men, as such, were deprived of their divine right to rule, and placed on a political level with women. By the practice of those declarations all class and caste distinction will be abolished; and slave, serf, plebeian, wife, woman, all alike, bound from their subject position to the proud platform of equality.

The preamble of the federal constitution says:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insuredomestictranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."

It was we, the people, not we, the white male citizens, nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed this Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people—women as well as men. And it is downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic-republican government—the ballot.

The early journals of Congress show that when the committee reported to that body the original articles of confederation, the very first article which became the subject of discussion was that respecting equality of suffrage. Article 4th said:

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse between the people of the different States of this Union, the free inhabitants of each of the States, (paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted,) shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the free citizens of the several States."

Thus, at the very beginning, did the fathers see the necessity of the universal application of the great principle of equal rights to all—in order to produce the desired result—a harmonious union and a homogeneous people.

Luther Martin, attorney-general of Maryland, in his report to the Legislature of that State of the convention that framed the United States Constitution, said:

"Those who advocated the equality of suffrage took the matter up on the original principles of government: that the reason why each individual man in forming a State government should have an equal vote, is because each individual, before he enters into government, is equally free and equally independent."

James Madison said:

"Under every view of the subject, it seems indispensable that the mass of the citizens should not be without a voice in making the laws which they are to obey, and in choosing the magistrates who are to administer them." Also, "Let it be remembered, finally, that it has ever been the pride and the boast of America that the rights for which she contended were the rights of human nature."

And these assertions of the framers of the United States Constitution of the equal and natural rights of all the people to a voice in the government, have been affirmed and reaffirmed by the leading statesmen of the nation, throughout the entire history of our government.

Thaddeus Stevens, of Pennsylvania, said in 1866:

"I have made up my mind that the elective franchise is one of the inalienable rights meant to be secured by the declaration of independence."

B. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, in the three days' discussion in the United States Senate in 1866, on Senator Cowan's motion to strike "male" from the District of Columbia suffrage bill, said:

"Mr. President, I say here on the floor of the American Senate, I stand for universal suffrage; and as a matter of fundamental principle, do not recognize the right of society to limit it on any ground of race or sex. I will go farther and say, that I recognize the right of franchise as being intrinsically a natural right. I do not believe that society is authorized to impose any limitations upon it that do not spring out of the necessities of the social state itself. Sir, I have been shocked, in the course of this debate, to hear Senators declare this right only a conventional and political arrangement, a privilege yielded to you and me and others; not a right in any sense, only a concession! Mr. President, I do not hold my liberties by any such tenure. On the contrary, I believe that whenever you establish that doctrine, whenever you crystalize that idea in the public mind of this country, you ring the death-knell of American liberties."

Charles Sumner, in his brave protests against the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, insisted that, so soon as by the thirteenth amendment the slaves became free men, the original powers of the United States Constitution guaranteed to them equal rights—the right to vote and to be voted for. In closing one of his great speeches he said:

"I do not hesitate to say that when the slaves of our country became 'citizens' they took their place in the body politic as a component part of the 'people,' entitled to equal rights, and under the protection of these two guardian principles: First—That all just governments stand on the consent of the governed; and second, that taxation without representation is tyranny; and these rights it is the duty of Congress to guarantee as essential to the idea of a Republic."

The preamble of the Constitution of the State of New York declares the same purpose. It says:

"We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution."

Here is not the slightest intimation, either of receiving freedom from the United States Constitution, or of the State conferring the blessings of liberty upon the people; and the same is true of every one of the thirty-six State Constitutions. Each and all, alike declare rights God-given, and that to secure the people in the enjoyment of their inalienable rights, is their one and only object in ordaining and establishing government. And all of the State Constitutions are equally emphatic in their recognition of the ballot as the means of securing the people in the enjoyment of these rights.

Article 1 of the New York State Constitution says:

"No member of this State shall be disfranchised or deprived of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers."

And so carefully guarded is the citizen's right to vote, that the Constitution makes special mention of all who may be excluded. It says:

"Laws may be passed excluding from the right of suffrage all persons who have been or may be convicted of bribery, larceny or any infamous crime."

In naming the various employments that shall not affect the residence of voters—the 3d section of article 2d says "that being kept at any alms house, or other asylum, at public expense, nor being confined at any public prison, shall deprive a person of his residence," and hence his vote. Thus is the right of voting most sacredly hedged about. The only seeming permission in the New York State Constitution for the disfranchisement of women is in section 1st of article 2d, which says:

"Every male citizen of the age of twenty-one years, &c., shall be entitled to vote."

But I submit that in view of the explicit assertions of the equal right of the whole people, both in the preamble and previous article of the constitution, this omission of the adjective "female" in the second, should not be construed into a denial; but, instead, counted as of no effect. Mark the direct prohibition: "No member of this State shall be disfranchised, unless by the 'law of the land,' or the judgment of his peers." "The law of the land," is the United States Constitution: and there is no provision in that document that can be fairly construed into a permission to the States to deprive any class of their citizens of their right to vote. Hence New York can get no power from that source to disfranchise one entire half of her members. Nor has "the judgment of their peers" been pronounced against women exercising their right to vote; no disfranchised person is allowed to be judge or juror—and none but disfranchised persons can be women's peers; nor has the legislature passed laws excluding them on account of idiocy or lunacy; nor yet the courts convicted them of bribery, larceny, or any infamous crime. Clearly, then, there is no constitutional ground for the exclusion of women from the ballot-box in the State of New York. No barriers whatever stand to-day between women and the exercise of their right to vote save those of precedent and prejudice.

The clauses of the United States Constitution, cited by our opponents as giving power to the States to disfranchise any classes of citizens they shall please, are contained in sections 2d and 4th of article 1st. The second says:

"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."

This cannot be construed into a concession to the States of the power to destroy the right to become an elector, but simply to prescribe what shall be the qualifications, such as competency of intellect, maturity of age, length of residence, that shall be deemed necessary to enable them to make an intelligent choice of candidates. If, as our opponents assert, the last clause of this section makes it the duty of the United States to protect citizens in the several States against higher or different qualifications for electors for representatives in Congress, than for members of Assembly, then must the first clause make it equally imperative for the national government to interfere with the States, and forbid them from arbitrarily cutting off the right of one-half of the people to become electors altogether. Section 4th says:

"The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators."

Here is conceded the power only to prescribe times, places and manner of holding the elections; and even with these Congress may interfere, with all excepting the mere place of choosing Senators. Thus you see, there is not the slightest permission in either section for the States to discriminate against the right of any class of citizens to vote. Surely, to regulate cannot be to annihilate! nor to qualify to wholly deprive. And to this principle every true Democrat and Republican said amen, when applied to black men by Senator Sumner in his great speeches forEQUAL RIGHTS TO ALLfrom 1865 to 1869; and when, in 1871, I asked that Senator to declare the power of the United States Constitution to protect women in their right to vote—as he had done for black men—he handed me a copy of all his speeches during that reconstruction period, and said:

"Miss Anthony, put 'sex' where I have 'race' or 'color,' and you have here the best and strongest argument I can make for woman. There is not a doubt but women have the constitutional right to vote, and I will never vote for a sixteenth amendment to guarantee it to them. I voted for both the fourteenth and fifteenth under protest; would never have done it but for the pressing emergency of that hour; would have insisted that the power of the original Constitution to protect all citizens in the equal enjoyment of their rights should have been vindicated through the courts. But the newly made freedmen had neither the intelligence, wealth nor time to wait that slow process. Women possess all these in an eminent degree, and I insist that they shall appeal to the courts, and through them establish the powers of our Americanmagna charta, to protect every citizen of the Republic. But, friends, when in accordance with Senator Summer's counsel, I went to the ballot-box, last November, and exercised my citizen's right to vote, the courts did not wait for me to appeal to them—they appealed to me, and indicted me on the charge of having voted illegally."

Senator Sumner, putting sex where he did color, said:

"Qualifications cannot be in their nature permanent or insurmountable. Sex cannot be a qualification any more than size, race, color, or previous condition of servitude. A permanent or insurmountable qualification is equivalent to a deprivation of the suffrage. In other words, it is the tyranny of taxation without representation, against which our revolutionary mothers, as well as fathers, rebelled."

For any State to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one entire half of the people, is to pass a bill of attainder, or anex post factolaw, and is therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land. By it, the blessings of liberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity. To them, this government has no just powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful obligarchy of sex. The most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe. An obligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor; an obligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant; or even an obligarchy of race, where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but this obligarchy of sex, which makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the obligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters of every household; which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries dissension, discord and rebellion into every home of the nation. And this most odious aristocracy exists, too, in the face of Section 4, of Article 4, which says:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government."

What, I ask you, is the distinctive difference between the inhabitants of a monarchical and those of a republican form of government, save that in the monarchical the people are subjects, helpless, powerless, bound to obey laws made by superiors—while in the republican, the people are citizens, individual sovereigns, all clothed with equal power, to make and unmake both their laws and law makers, and the moment you deprive a person of his right to a voice in the government, you degrade him from the status of a citizen of the republic, to that of a subject, and it matters very little to him whether his monarch be an individual tyrant, as is the Czar of Russia, or a 15,000,000 headed monster, as here in the United States; he is a powerless subject, serf or slave; not a free and independent citizen in any sense.

But, it is urged, the use of the masculine pronouns he, his and him, in all the constitutions and laws, is proof that only men were meant to be included in their provisions. If you insist on this version of the letter of the law, we shall insist that you be consistent, and accept the other horn of the dilemma, which would compel you to exempt women from taxation for the support of the government, and from penalties for the violation of laws.

A year and a half ago I was at Walla Walla, Washington Territory. I saw there a theatrical company, called the "Pixley Sisters," playing before crowded houses, every night of the whole week of the territorial fair. The eldest of those three fatherless girls was scarce eighteen. Yet every night a United States officer stretched out his long fingers, and clutched six dollars of the proceeds of the exhibitions of those orphan girls, who, but a few years before, were half starvelings in the streets of Olympia, the capital of that far-off north-west territory. So the poor widow, who keeps a boarding house, manufactures shirts, or sells apples and peanuts on the street corners of our cities, is compelled to pay taxes from her scanty pittance. I would that the women of this republic, at once, resolve, never again to submit to taxation, until their right to vote be recognized.

Miss Sarah E. Wall, of Worcester, Mass., twenty years ago, took this position. For several years, the officers of the law distrained her property, and sold it to meet the necessary amount; still she persisted, and would not yield an iota, though every foot of her lands should be struck off under the hammer. And now, for several years, the assessor has left her name off the tax list, and the collector passed her by without a call.

Mrs. J.S. Weeden, of Viroqua, Wis., for the past six years, has refused to pay her taxes, though the annual assessment is $75.

Mrs. Ellen Van Valkenburg, of Santa Cruz, Cal., who sued the County Clerk for refusing to register her name, declares she will never pay another dollar of tax until allowed to vote; and all over the country, women property holders are waking up to the injustice of taxation without representation, and ere long will refuse,en masse, to submit to the imposition.

There is no she, or her, or hers, in the tax laws.

The statute of New York reads:

Back to Index Next