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