nocent as she was, they can not be too soon released. Even
those who were guilty of offenses cognizable by the State law, were
unjustly tried and condemned under an unconstitutional statute passed
for political effect.

[From the Philadelphia _Age_].

THE FUNNY CASE OF MISS ANTHONY.

The case of Miss Susan B. Anthony seems to be dismissed with a laugh
by most of the press; but from the first institution of a prosecution
against her under the Ku-Klux law, we have regarded the proceeding as
one in which the injustice was not cloaked by the absurdity. The law
was passed by Congress on a political cry that massacre and outrage
menaced negroes at the polls in the Southern States, and now we have
it used to oppress a woman in Rochester, New York. We are not debarred
from saying "oppressed" because the judge left the fine to be levied
on her property instead of imprisoning her person--in a State in which
women have, we suppose, long been exempt from imprisonment for debt.
But the chief outrage in the case is that it affords the first case,
we believe, in the United States, or anywhere in modern times, of a
conviction for a crime when there was no criminal intent. The proof,
or the presumption of this, is essential to a crime in the criminal
law of every civilized nation. The case of Miss Anthony was that of a
lady who believed that the much vaunted amendments of the Federal
Constitution extended to white women; and many lawyers and Congressmen
have also avowed this opinion. We do not hold it, but we do not doubt
that Miss Anthony does, very sincerely. We think as the Judge says in
her case, that the Federal Constitution has nothing to do with the
matter; that is wholly regulated by the Constitution of New York. But
every word of his argument was equally strong to show that he, a
Federal Judge, had nothing to do with the matter, and that it wholly
belonged to the courts of New York. They know, we presume, no law that
can create a crime without a criminal intention, and we deny the right
of Congress or any earthly authority to pass so monstrous a law. Every
day in criminal courts that point arises. If a man charged with
larceny is proved to have taken the goods of another, but under some
idea that he had a right to them, no matter how erroneous, the
criminal prosecution is instantly dismissed. Our eminent jurist,
Judge King, used to say: "This is a civil suit run mad." Has any
citizen of Philadelphia supposed that if there