olutionary maxim,
"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God."

Judge Hunt.--Madam, the Court will not order you to stand committed
until the fine is paid.

Thus ended the great trial, "The United States of America _vs._ Susan
B. Anthony." From this date the question of woman suffrage was lifted
from one of grievances into one of Constitutional Law.

This was Judge Hunt's first criminal case after his elevation to the
Supreme Bench of the United States. He was appointed at the
solicitation of his intimate friend and townsman, Roscoe Conkling, and
had an interview with him immediately preceding this trial. Mr.
Conkling was an avowed enemy of woman suffrage. Miss Anthony always has
believed that he inspired the course of Judge Hunt and that his
decision was written before the trial, a belief shared by most of those
associated in the case.

Miss Anthony says in her journal: "The greatest judicial outrage
history ever recorded! No law, logic or demand of justice could change
Judge Hunt's will. We were convicted before we had a hearing and the
trial was a mere farce." Some time afterwards Judge Selden wrote her:
"I regard the ruling of the judge, and also his refusal to submit the
case to the jury, as utterly indefensible." Scarcely a newspaper in the
country sustained Judge Hunt's action. The Canandaigua Times thus
expressed the general sentiment in an editorial, soon after the trial:

The decisions of Judge Hunt in the Anthony case have been widely
criticised, and it seems to us not without reason. Even among those
who accept the conclusion that women have not a legal right to vote
and who do not hesitate to express the opinion that Miss Anthony
deserved a greater punishment than she received, we find many
seriously questioning the propriety of a proceeding whereby the
proper functions of the jury are dispensed with, and the Court
arrogates to itself the right to determine as to the guilt or
innocence of the accused party. If this may be done in one
instance, why may it not in all? And if our courts may thus
arbitrarily direct what verdicts shall be rendered, what becomes of
the right to trial "by an impartial jury," which the Constitution
guarantees to all persons alike, whether male or female? These are
questions of grave importance, to which the American people now
have their attention forcibly directed through the extraordinary
action of