The House of Lords in England or the Senate of the United States might engage in any investigation looking to legislation, although, as an incident to, or a results of, such investigation, it might appear that some officer who is impeachable has been responsible of conduct for which he could be impeached. Then, absolutely, in a case like this, the place there is neither suggestion nor suspicion of corrupt conduct on the part of the estimable decide before whom the trial was carried out, it cannot be improper for a committee of the Senate to inquire whether, within the trial of a citizen for alleged violation of the legal guidelines of the United States, a precedent dangerous to the liberties of every citizen has been set. I believed then, and believe now, that we acted lawfully. 2. That whether or not she had a proper to vote or not, if she truthfully believed that she had that proper, and voted in good religion in that perception, she was guilty of no crime. Your petitioner additionally respectfully insists that the decision of the judge that good faith on the part of your petitioner in providing her vote did not constitute a protection, was not solely a violation of the deepest and most sacred precept of the criminal legislation, that nobody may be responsible of crime unless a criminal intent exists; but was additionally a palpable violation of the statute under which the conviction was had; not on the ground that good religion could, in this, or in any case, justify a criminal act, but on the bottom that unhealthy religion in voting was an indispensable ingredient in the offense with which your petitioner was charged.
The district legal professional thereupon addressed the court at size upon the authorized questions, and at the shut of his argument the decide delivered an opinion adversarial to the positions of your petitioner’s counsel upon each of the authorized questions presented, holding that your petitioner was not entitled to vote; and that if she voted in good religion in the idea in undeniable fact that she had a proper to vote, it might constitute no defense; the bottom of the choice on the last point being that your petitioner was sure to know that by the regulation she was not a authorized voter, and that even when she voted in good faith within the contrary belief, it constituted no protection to the crime with which she was charged. To the decision of the judge upon the question of the best of your petitioner to vote, she makes no complaint. It was shown on behalf of your petitioner, on the trial, that before voting she called upon a respectable lawyer and requested his opinion whether or not she had a proper 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 advice, and that he gave it in good faith, be lieving that she had such proper.
3. That when your petitioner gave her vote she gave it in good religion, believing that it was her proper to do so. It was a query properly belonging to the court to resolve, was fully and pretty submitted to the decide, and of his decision, whether or not right or flawed, your petitioner is properly conscious she cannot here complain. That the two first propositions presented questions for the court docket to resolve, and the last query for the jury. The choice of the decide upon those questions was learn from a written document, and on the shut of the reading the judge 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 find a verdict of responsible in opposition to your petitioner. The choose then said to the counsel that he thought that had better be left till the views of the courtroom upon the legal questions should be made identified. But the denial of her rights to overlook Susan B. Anthony in a court docket of the Union is thought to be unworthy the attention of the American Senate.
Gentlemen who would blush to be thought negligent within the workplaces of frivolous gallantry lack the manhood to accord to girls their substantial rights. Your petitioner respectfully submits that, in these proceedings, she has been denied the rights assured by the Constitution to all individuals accused of crime, the correct of trial by jury, and the fitting to have the help of counsel for his or her protection. And, unusual to say, ladies dwelling in luxurious ease join with the fops of society to forged contempt upon the earnest aspirations of lady for the possession of her just rights. When your petitioner’s counsel had proceeded up to now, the decide prompt that the counsel had better focus on, in the first place, the questions of legislation, which the counsel proceeded to do; and, having mentioned the 2 authorized questions at length, requested then to say just a few phrases to the jury on the question of reality. On the close of the testimony, your petitioner’s counsel proceeded to deal with the jury, and said that he desired to present for consideration three propositions, two of regulation, and one in every of fact: 1. That your petitioner had a lawful right to vote.
