If I’m proper in this, the end result must be a verdict in your a part of responsible, and that i therefore direct that you just find a verdict of responsible. Much which is perverted is being preached in relation to this, within the very circles of educated girls. The defendant was indicted underneath the nineteenth section of the act of Congress of May 31, 1870, entitled, “An act to enforce the proper of citizens of the United States to vote within the a number of States of this Union, and for other functions,” and was charged with having knowingly voted, without having a lawful right to vote, at the Congressional election in the Eighth Ward of the city of Rochester, in November last; the one ground of illegality being that the defendant was a woman. The District Attorney thereupon addressed the Court at length upon the legal questions, and at the shut of his argument the Court delivered an opinion adversarial to the positions of the defendant’s counsel upon each of the authorized questions offered, holding that the defendant was not entitled to vote; and that if she voted in good faith in the belief in fact that she had a right to vote, it would constitute no defense-the grounds of the choice on the final level being that she was sure to know that by regulation she was not a legal voter, and that even if she voted in good faith within the contrary perception, it constituted no defense to the crime with which she was charged.
At the close of the reading, the Court said that the decision of these questions disposed of the case and left no question of fact for the jury, and that he should due to this fact direct the jury to discover a verdict of guilty, and proceeded to say to the jury that the decision of the Court had disposed of all there was in the case, and that he directed them to discover a verdict of guilty, and he instructed the clerk to enter a verdict of responsible. You say you discover the defendant guilty of the offense whereof she stands indicted, and so say you all? The Court then instructed the clerk to take the verdict, and the clerk stated, “Gentlemen of the jury, hearken to the verdict as the Court hath recorded it. You say you discover the defendant guilty of the offense charged. So say you all.” No response no matter was made by the jury, either by word or sign. When the counsel had proceeded to date, the Court recommended that the counsel had better focus on in the primary place the questions of regulation; which the counsel proceeded to do, and having mentioned the two legal questions at size, requested go away then to say a few words to the jury on the query of truth.
Before I took leave I requested her to appoint another rendezvous for the subsequent day, which she postponed for 3 days, adding, with a satirical smile, that I have to needs be in want of repose. United States, of competent jurisdiction, and on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a tremendous not exceeding $500 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both, in the discretion of the Court, and shall pay the prices of prosecution. Fourth.-That the jury have a right to find a general verdict of guilty or not responsible as they shall consider that she has or has not dedicated the offense described in the statute. The defendant’s counsel excepted to the choice of the Court upon the authorized questions-to its refusal to submit the case to the jury; to its refusal to present the instructions requested; and to its path to the jury to discover a verdict of responsible towards the defendant-the counsel insisting that it was a course which no Court had a proper to present in a criminal case. The Judge directed the jury to discover a verdict of responsible. In any respect occasions, it’s for the jury. Second.-In determining the question whether or not she did or did not believe that she had a right to vote, the jury may take into consideration, as bearing upon that query, the recommendation which she obtained from the counsel to whom she applied.
It additionally appeared that when she provided to vote, the query whether as a lady she had a proper to vote, was raised by the inspectors, and regarded by them in her presence, and so they determined that she had a right to vote, and received her vote accordingly. Amendment, which Miss Anthony claims protects her, she was not protected in a right to vote. First.-That the defendant had a lawful right to vote. It was also shown on the part of the government, that on the examination of the defendant before the commissioner on whose warrant she was arrested, she stated that she ought to have voted, if allowed to vote, without reference to the advice she had received from the attorney whose opinion she had requested; that she was not influenced to vote by that opinion; that she had earlier than determined to supply her vote, and had little question about her proper to vote. It appeared on the trial that earlier than voting the defendant called upon a respectable lawyer, and requested his opinion whether or not she had a right to vote, and he advised her that she had such right, and the lawyer was examined as a witness in her behalf, and testified that he gave her such recommendation, and that he gave it in good faith, believing that she had such proper.