An Account of the Proceedings on the Trial of Susan B. Anthony | Page 2

whether they assented to the
verdict which the court had directed to be entered. The verdict of guilty
was entered by the clerk, as directed by the court, without any express
assent or dissent on the part of the jury. A fine of $100, and costs, was
imposed upon the defendant.

Miss ANTHONY insists that in these proceedings, the fundamental
principle of criminal law, that no person can be a criminal unless the
mind be so--that an honest mistake is not a crime, has been disregarded;
that she has been denied her constitutional right of trial by jury, the jury
having had no voice in her conviction; that she has been denied her
right to have the response of every juror to the question, whether he did
or did not assent to the verdict which the court directed the clerk to
enter.
The trial of the three inspectors followed that of Miss ANTHONY, and
all were convicted, the court holding, as in the case of Miss
ANTHONY, that good faith on their part in receiving the votes was not
a protection; which they think a somewhat severe rule of law, inasmuch
as the statute provides the same penalty, and in the same sentence, "for
knowingly and wilfully receiving the vote of any person not entitled to
vote, or refusing to receive the vote of any person entitled to vote." The
inspectors claim, that according to this exposition of the law, they were
placed in a position which required them, without any opportunity to
investigate or take advice in regard to the right of any voter whose right
was questioned, to decide the question correctly, at the peril of a term
in the state's prison if they made a mistake; and, though this may be a
correct exposition of the law in their case, they would be sorry to see it
applied to the decisions of any court, not excepting the tribunal by
which they were convicted.
The defendant, HALL, is at a loss to know how he could have avoided
the penalty, inasmuch as he did all that he could in the way of rejecting
the votes, without throttling his co-inspectors, and forcing them to
desist from the wrong of receiving them. He is of opinion that by the
ruling of the Court, he would have been equally guilty, if he had tried
his strength in that direction, and had failed of success.
To preserve a full record of so important a judicial determination, and
to enable the friends of the convicted parties to understand precisely the
degree of criminality which attaches to them in consequence of these
convictions, the following pamphlet has been prepared--giving a more
full and accurate statement of the proceedings than can elsewhere be

found.

INDICTMENT
AGAINST SUSAN B. ANTHONY.
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
IN AND FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
* * *
At a stated session of the District Court of the United States of America,
held in and for the Northern District of New York, at the City Hall, in
the city of Albany, in the said Northern District of New York, on the
third Tuesday of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and seventy-three, before the Honorable Nathan K. Hall, Judge
of the said Court, assigned to keep the peace of the said United States
of America, in and for the said District, and also to hear and determine
divers Felonies, Misdemeanors and other offenses against the said
United States of America, in the said District committed.
Brace Millerd, James D. Wasson, Peter H. Bradt, James McGinty,
Henry A. Davis, Loring W. Osborn, Thomas Whitbeck, John Mullen,
Samuel G. Harris, Ralph Davis, Matthew Fanning, Abram Kimmey,
Derrick B. Van Schoonhoven, Wilhelmus Van Natten, Adam Winne,
James Goold, Samuel S. Fowler, Peter D.R. Johnson, Patrick Carroll,
good and lawful men of the said District, then and there sworn and
charged to inquire for the said United States of America, and for the
body of said District, do, upon their oaths, present, that Susan B.
Anthony now or late of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, with force
and arms, etc., to-wit: at and in the first election district of the eighth
ward of the city of Rochester, in the county of Monroe, in said
Northern District of New York, and within the jurisdiction of this Court,

heretofore, to-wit: on the fifth day of November, in the year of our Lord
one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, at an election duly held at
and in the first election district of the said eighth ward of the city of
Rochester, in said county, and in said Northern District of New York,
which said election was for Representatives in the Congress of the
United States, to-wit: a