f is
guilty of a crime for which impeachment is the remedy.

The jury in Miss Anthony's case was composed of excellent men. None
better could have been drawn anywhere. Justice Hunt knew that. He
had the jury impanelled only as a matter of form. He said so in the
inspectors' case. He came to Canandaigua to hold the Circuit Court,
for the purpose of convicting Miss Anthony. He had unquestionably
prepared his opinion beforehand. The job had to be done, so he took
the bull by the horns and directed the jury to find a verdict of
guilty. In the case of the inspectors he refused to defendants'
counsel the right of addressing the jury.

Judge Hunt very adroitly, in passing sentence on Miss Anthony
imposing a fine of $100, refused to add, what is usual in such
cases, that she be imprisoned until the fine be paid. Had he done
so, Miss Anthony would have gone to prison, and then taken her case
directly to the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of
habeas corpus. There she would have been discharged, because trial
by jury had been denied her. But as Miss Anthony was not even held
in custody after judgment had been pronounced, she could not resort
to habeas corpus proceedings and had no appeal.

But the outrage of ordering a verdict of guilty against the
defendant was not the only outrage committed by this judge on these
trials:

It was an outrage to refuse the right of a defendant to poll the
jury.

It was an outrage for the judge to refuse to hold that if the
defendant believed she had a right to vote, and voted in good faith
in that belief, she was not guilty of the charge.

It was an outrage to hold that the jury, in considering the
question whether she did or did not believe she had a right to
vote, might not consider that she took the advice of Judge Selden
before she voted, and acted on that advice.

It was an outrage to hold that the jury might not take into
consideration, as bearing upon the same question, the fact that the
inspectors and supervisor of election looked into the question, and
came to the conclusion that she had the right to be registered and
vote, and told her so, and so decided.

It was an outrage for the judge to hold that the jury had not the
right to consider the defendant's motive, and to find her innocent
if she acted without any intent