ey will not sit quietly by to see their liberties,
red and radiant with the blood of a million of their sons, silently
melted away in the judicial crucible of a stolid and tyrannical
judge of their Federal Court." This is forcible, certainly; but it
ought to be speedily decided, at least, whether there is such a
legal principle as we have mentioned.

The Utica Observer gave this opinion:

We have sought the advice of the best legal and judicial minds in
our State in regard to the ruling of Justice Ward Hunt in the case
of Susan B. Anthony. While the written opinion of the judge is very
generally commended, his action in ordering a verdict of guilty to
be entered, without giving the jury an opportunity of saying
whether it was their verdict or not, is almost universally
condemned. Such a case never before occurred in the history of our
courts, and the hope is very general that it never will again.
Between the indictment and the judgment stands the jury, and there
is no way known to the law by which the jury's power in criminal
cases can be abrogated. The judge may charge the jury that the
defense is invalid; that it is their clear duty to find the
prisoner guilty. But beyond this he can not properly go. He has no
right to order the clerk to enter a verdict which is not the
verdict 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