votes for city officers, for poor wardens and school commissioners, thus expressing her views as to the education of her children, which is a power not possessed by a single woman of this State of New York, whose boast has been that it leads the legislation of the world in regard to women.  Property-holding women in England, vote equally with property-holding men, for every office except Parliamentary, and even that is near at hand, a petition for it of 180,000 names going up last year.  England, though a monarchy, is consistent with herself.  As the foundation of English representation is property, not persons, property is allowed its representation, whether it is held by man or by woman.

“Are ye not of more value than many sparrows?” said one of old.  Is it less pertinent for us to ask if personal representation is not more sacred than property representation?  “Where governments lead, there are no revolutions,” said the eloquent Castelar.  But revolution is imminent in a government like ours, instituted by the people, for the people, in its charters recognizing the most sacred rights of the people, but which, in a sovereign capacity, through its officials, tramples upon the most sacredly secured and guaranteed rights of the people.

The question brought up by this trial is not a woman’s rights question, but a citizen’s rights question.  It is not denied that women are citizens,—­it is not denied that Susan B. Anthony was born in the United States, and is therefore a citizen of the United States, and of the State wherein she resides, which is this State of New York.  It cannot be denied that she is a person,—­one of the people,—­there is not a word in the Constitution of the United States which militates against the recognition of woman as a person, as one of the people, as a citizen.  The whole question, then, to-day, turns on the power of the United States over the political rights of citizens—­the whole question then, to-day, turns on the supreme authority of the National Constitution.

The Constitution recognizes native-born women as citizens, both of the United States, and of the States in which they reside, and the Enforcement Act of 1870, in unison with our national fundamental principles, is entitled “An Act to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of the Union.”  Out of those three words, “for other purposes,” or any provisions of this act included in them, cannot be found authority for restraining any citizen not “guilty of participating in the rebellion, or other crime,” from voting, and we brand this prosecution of Miss Anthony by United States officials, under claim of provisions in this act, as an illegal prosecution—­an infamous prosecution, in direct defiance of national law—­dangerous in its principles, tending to subvert a republican form of government, and a direct step, whether so designed or not, to the establishment of a monarchy in this country.  Where the right of one individual is attacked, the rights of all are menaced.  A blow against one citizen, is a blow against every citizen.