judicial crucible of a stolid and tyrannical judge of their Federal Court." This is forcible, certainly; but it ought to be speedily decided, at least, whether there is such a legal principle as we have mentioned.
The Utica Observer gave this opinion:
We have sought the advice of the best legal and judicial minds in our State in regard to the ruling of Justice Ward Hunt in the case of Susan B. Anthony. While the written opinion of the judge is very generally commended, his action in ordering a verdict of guilty to be entered, without giving the jury an opportunity of saying whether it was their verdict or not, is almost universally condemned. Such a case never before occurred in the history of our courts, and the hope is very general that it never will again. Between the indictment and the judgment stands the jury, and there is no way known to the law by which the jury's power in criminal cases can be abrogated. The judge may charge the jury that the defense is invalid; that it is their clear duty to find the prisoner guilty. But beyond this he can not properly go. He has no right to order the clerk to enter a verdict which is not the verdict of the jury. In doing this thing Justice Hunt outraged the rights of Susan B. Anthony. It would probably puzzle him to tell why he submitted the case of the inspectors to the jury after taking the case of Miss Anthony out of their hands. It would also puzzle his newspaper champions.
The Legal News, of Chicago, edited by Myra Bradwell, made this pertinent comment: "Judge Ward Hunt, of the Federal Bench, violated the Constitution of the United States more in convicting Miss Anthony of illegal voting, than she did in voting; for he had sworn to support it, and she had not."
The Albany Law Journal, however, after indulging in a few vulgar platitudes on the fact of Miss Anthony's having admitted that she was a woman, declared that Judge Hunt transcended his rights but that "if Miss Anthony does not like our laws she'd better emigrate!" This legal authority failed to advise where she could emigrate to find laws which were equally just to men and to women. It might also have answered the question, "Should a woman be compelled to leave the land of her nativity because of the injustice of its laws?"
Miss Anthony's trial closed on Wednesday and she remained in Canandaigua to attend that of the three inspectors, which followed at once. She was called as a witness and inquired of Judge Hunt: "I should like to know if the testimony of a person convicted of a crime can be taken?" "They call you as a witness, madam," was his brusque reply. Later, thinking to trap her, he asked, "You presented yourself as a female, claiming that you had a right to vote?" Quick as a flash came her answer: "I presented myself not as a female, sir, but as a citizen of the United States. I was called to the ballot-box by the Fourteenth Amendment, not as a female but as a citizen."
The inspectors were defended by Mr. Van Voorhis but, after the testimony was introduced, the judge refused to allow him to address the jury. He practically directed them to bring in a verdict of guilty, saying, "You can decide it here or go out." The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The motion for a new trial was denied. One of the inspectors (Hall) had been tried and convicted without being brought into court. They were fined $25 each and the costs of the prosecution but, although neither was paid, they were not imprisoned at that time.
When asked for his opinion on the case, after a lapse of twenty-four years, Mr. Van Voorhis gave the following:
There never before was a trial in the country of one-half the importance of this of Miss Anthony's. That of Andrew Johnson had no issue which could compare in value with the one here at stake. If Miss Anthony had won her case on the merits, it would have revolutionized the suffrage of the country and enfranchised every woman in the United States. There was a pre-arranged determination to convict her. A jury trial was dangerous, and so the Constitution was openly and deliberately violated.
The Constitution makes the jury, in a criminal case, the judges of the law and of the facts. No matter how clear or how strong the case may appear to the judge, it must be submitted to the jury. That is the mandate of the Constitution. As no one can be convicted of crime except upon trial by jury, it follows that the jury are entitled to pass upon the law as well as the facts. The judge can advise the jury on questions of law. He can legally do no more. If he control the jury and direct a verdict of guilty, he himself is guilty of a crime for which impeachment is the remedy.
The jury in Miss Anthony's case was composed of excellent men. None better could have been drawn anywhere. Justice Hunt knew that. He had the jury impanelled only as a matter of form. He said so in the inspectors' case. He came to Canandaigua to hold the Circuit Court, for the purpose of convicting Miss Anthony. He had unquestionably prepared his opinion beforehand. The job had to be done, so he took the bull by the horns and directed the jury to find a verdict of guilty. In the case of the inspectors he refused to defendants' counsel the right of addressing the jury.
Judge Hunt very adroitly, in passing sentence on Miss Anthony imposing a fine of $100, refused to add, what is usual in such cases, that she be imprisoned until the fine be paid. Had he done so, Miss Anthony would have gone to prison, and then taken her case directly to the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of habeas corpus. There she would have been discharged, because trial by jury had been denied her. But as Miss Anthony was not even held in custody after judgment had been pronounced, she could not resort to habeas corpus proceedings and had no appeal.
But the outrage of ordering a verdict of guilty against the defendant was not the only outrage committed by this judge on these trials:
It was an outrage to refuse the right of a defendant to poll the jury.
It was an outrage for the judge to refuse to hold that if the defendant believed she had a right to vote, and voted in good faith in that belief, she was not guilty of the charge.
It was an outrage to hold that the jury, in considering the question whether she did or did not believe she had a right to vote, might not consider that she took the advice of Judge Selden before she voted, and acted on that advice.
It was an outrage to hold that the jury might not take into consideration, as bearing upon the same question, the fact that the inspectors and supervisor of election looked into the question, and came to the conclusion that she had the right to be registered and vote, and told her so, and so decided.
It was an outrage for the judge to hold that the jury had not the right to consider the defendant's motive, and to find her innocent if she acted without any intent to violate the law.
In the case of the inspectors, it was an outrage to refuse defendants' counsel the right to address the jury.
It was an outrage to refuse to instruct the jury that if the defendants, being administrative officers, acted without any criminal motive but in accordance with their best judgment, and in perfect good faith, they were not guilty.
Judge Selden has passed to his eternal rest and lies beneath a massive monument of granite in beautiful Mount Hope cemetery. Mr. Van Voorhis thus paid tribute to his associate in this noted case: "His argument on the constitutional points involved is one of the ablest and most complete to be found in history. As a lawyer he had no superior; he was a master in his profession. He had a most discriminating mind and a marvellous memory. He was familiar with the books, and possessed a power of statement equal to that of Daniel Webster. I predict that the verdict of history will be that Judge Selden was right and the Court wrong upon the constitutional question involved in this case."
To the heavy debts of The Revolution which, with all her efforts, Miss Anthony had been able to reduce but a fraction, were now added the costs of this suit. She did not propose to pay the fines, but she did intend to see that the inspectors were relieved of all expense in connection with the trial. Her indomitable courage did not fail her even in this emergency, and as usual she was sustained by the substantial appreciation of her friends. Letters of sympathy and financial help poured in from acquaintances and strangers in all parts of the country. Indignation
