citizen of this nation." Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Belva A. Lockwood, Rev. Olympia Brown and others made ringing speeches on the right of women to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment, defended the course of Miss Anthony and denounced her arrest. This was the tenor of all the addresses. She was unanimously elected president for the ensuing year, notwithstanding prison walls loomed up before her; and then she hastened back to prepare for her legal battle.
Miss Anthony met her counsel at Albany, and on January 21 Judge Selden made a masterly argument before U.S. District-Judge N.K. Hall, in support of her demand for a writ of habeas corpus, and asked the discharge of the prisoner on the grounds: 1st, That in the act complained of she discharged a duty or, at all events, exercised a right, instead of committing a crime; that she had a constitutional and lawful right to offer her ballot and to have it received and counted; that she, as well as her brothers, was entitled to express her choice as to the persons who should make, and those who should execute the laws, inasmuch as she, as well as they, would be bound to observe them. 2d, That, if she had not that right, she in good faith believed that she had it and, therefore, her act lacked the indispensable ingredient of all crime, a corrupt intention.
The judge denied the writ and increased her bail to $1,000. From the first Miss Anthony had been determined not to recognize the right of the courts to interfere with her exercise of the franchise, and again she refused to give bail, insisting that rather than do this she preferred to go to jail. Judge Selden, however, in kindness of heart, said there were times when a client must be guided by advice of her counsel, and himself went on her bond. As she came out of the courtroom she met her other lawyer, Mr. Van Voorhis, and told him what had been done. He exclaimed, "You have lost your chance to get your case before the Supreme Court by writ of habeas corpus!" In her ignorance of legal forms she had not understood this, and at once she rushed back and tried to have the bond cancelled, but, to her bitter disappointment, this was impossible. When she demanded of Judge Selden, "Did you not know that you had estopped me from carrying my case to the Supreme Court?" he replied with his old-time courtesy, "Yes, but I could not see a lady I respected put in jail."
The following day, January 22, the commission then in session at Albany for the purpose of revising the State Constitution was addressed by Miss Anthony on woman's right to vote under the Constitution of the United States. Her attorneys, Selden and Van Voorhis, were present and, when she finished, the former said to her, "If I had heard this address first I could have made a far better argument before Judge Hall." Immediately following the judge's decision, Miss Anthony was indicted by the grand jury.1
During this winter she attended the Ohio and Illinois Suffrage conventions, and in a number of cities in these States and in Indiana made her great constitutional argument on the right of women to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment. Every newspaper in the country took up the points involved and the interest and agitation were wide-spread. She spoke at Ft. Wayne on February 25, an intensely cold night. Above her was an open scuttle, from which a stream of air poured down upon her head, and when half through her lecture she suddenly became unconscious. She was the guest of Mrs. Mary Hamilton Williams, and was taken at once to her home where she received every possible kindness and attention. As soon as she recovered consciousness she begged that steps be taken immediately to keep the occurrence from the Associated Press, as she feared that, on account of her mother's extremely delicate health, the shock and anxiety would prove fatal. Three nights later, although not wholly recovered, she spoke to a large audience at Marion, Ind.; the diary says, "going on the platform with fear and trembling."
She returned home, and on March 4 cast her ballot at the city election without any protest. Only two other ladies could be induced to vote, Mrs. Mary Pulver and Mrs. Mary S. Hebard. All of the others who had voted in the fall were thoroughly frightened, and their husbands and other male relatives were even more panic-stricken.
In the midst of her own perplexities Miss Anthony did not forget to issue the call2 for the May Anniversary in New York, where she made an address, detailing the incidents of her arrest and defending her rights as a citizen. All the speeches and letters of the convention were deeply sympathetic, and among the resolutions bearing on this question was one stating that since the underlying principle of our government is equality of political rights, therefore "the trial of Susan B. Anthony, though ostensibly involving only the political status of woman, in reality questions the right of every man to share in the government; that it is not Susan B. Anthony or the women of the republic who alone are on trial today, but it is the government of the United States, and that as the decision is rendered for or against the political rights of citizenship, so will the men of America find themselves free or enslaved."
A reception was given by Dr. Clemence Lozier, founder of the Woman's Homeopathic College of New York, who was always Miss Anthony's faithful and devoted friend, never shaken in her trust by any storm that raged. During the darkest days of her paper, The Revolution, when the generosity of all others had been exhausted, Dr. Lozier gave her $50 every Saturday for many weeks and helped her by so much to bear the weight of the financial burden. For more than a quarter of a century her hospitable doors were always ajar for her, and it was to be expected that, at this crucial moment, she would again express her loyalty.
Miss Anthony's trial was set for the term of court beginning May 13, and she decided to make a canvass of Monroe county, not to argue her own case but in order that the people might be educated upon the constitutional points involved. Commencing March 11, she spoke in twenty-nine of the post-office districts. Being informed that District-Attorney Crowley threatened to move her trial into another county because she would prejudice the jury, she notified him she would see that that county also was thoroughly canvassed, and asked him if she were prejudicing a jury by reading and explaining the Constitution of the United States.
The speech delivered by Miss Anthony during these weeks was a masterpiece of clear, strong, logical argument in defense of woman's right to the ballot which never has been equalled.3 Her audiences were large and attentive and public sentiment was thoroughly aroused. One of the papers gives this description: "Miss Anthony was fashionably dressed in black silk with demi-train, basque with flowing sleeves, heavily trimmed in black lace; ruffled white lace undersleeves and a broad, graceful lace collar; with a gold neck chain and pendant. Her abundant hair was brushed back and bound in a knot after the fashion of our grandmothers."
When the time for trial came, true to his promise, District-Attorney Crowley obtained an order removing the cause to the U.S. Circuit Court which was held at Canandaigua. This left just twenty-two days and, calling to her aid Matilda Joslyn Gage, Miss Anthony spoke in twenty-one places on the question, "Is it a crime for a United States citizen to vote?" and Mrs. Gage in sixteen on "The United States on trial, not Susan B. Anthony." Their last meeting was held in Canandaigua the evening before the trial, and resolutions against this injustice toward woman were heartily endorsed by the audience. The Rochester Union and Advertiser condemned her in unmeasured terms, having editorials similar to this:
SUSAN B. ANTHONY AS A CORRUPTIONIST.—We give in another column today, from a legal friend, a communication which shows very clearly that Miss Anthony is engaged in a work that will be likely to bring her to grief. It is nothing more nor less than an attempt to corrupt the source of that justice under law which flows from trial by jury. Miss Anthony's case has passed from its gayest to its gravest character. United States courts are not stages for the enactment of comedy or farce, and the promptness and decision of their judges in sentencing to prison culprits convicted before them show that they are no respecters of persons.
Many influential newspapers, however, spoke in the highest terms of her courage and ability and the justice of her cause.4
The trial5 opened the afternoon of June 17, at the lovely village
