Susan Anthony: Guilty of Unlawfully Voting - POST-TRIAL BACKLASH

It wasn’t just in America where women tried to change the law so they could vote. The same thing was happening in the United Kingdom. This political cartoon, which was published in Punch during 1867—five years before Susan Anthony and her friends voted in the 1872 election—mocks the efforts of one Member of Parliament (MP) who tried to help. Its title is: “Mill’s Logic; or, Franchise for Females.” Curators at the UK’s National Archives tell us more about it:

“This cartoon mocks John Stuart Mill's attempt to replace the term 'man' with 'person' in the second Reform Bill of 1867. Mill, a social reformer and MP, became known as a champion of women's rights. His proposal was greeted with laughter in the House of Commons, and defeated by 76 votes to 196. PRO LIBRARY Punch, p.129 (30 March 1867).”


How did people react to the heavy-handed tactics of Justice Ward Hunt, sitting in his first criminal trial? Did anyone discuss what had happened? Did anyone think it strange that a sitting Supreme Court Justice had acted as Susan's trial-court judge?

To answer those questions, we need primary evidence created by people who were around at the time.

Isabella Beecher Hooker was one of those people. Reading her March 30, 1883 speech today, one can still feel her emotion more than a century later.

...[A] Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States declares from the bench that the citizen's right to vote comes from the state alone...Judge Hunt accepted this conclusion and declared that this is the constitutional law of the United States as interpreted by him in his capacity of Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States...

So we confirm that Ward Hunt was indeed a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court when he acted as trial judge in the case of The United States vs. Susan B. Anthony.

What about the due process violations in the trial? Any comments on those actions?

...Not content with misinterpreting the law of the United States...he denied to Miss Anthony the right of trial by jury - that is, he decided the case himself, and caused the clerk of the court to record the verdict of guilty without reference to the jury, who were impaneled for the case, who had been sitting all through the trial to hear the case, and who alone were legally competent to bring in a verdict upon it. And when Miss Anthony's counsel asked leave to address the jury he was denied; and when he asked that the jury might be polled...he was again denied, and Judge Hunt then instructed the clerk to take the verdict, and the clerk said, in the usual form:            

"Gentlemen of the jury, hearken to the verdict as the court hath recorded it. You say you find the defendant guilty of the offense charged. So say you all."

Of course, the jury had not reached the verdict; the judge did.

No response was made by the jury, either by word or sign. They had not consulted together in their seats or otherwise. None of them had spoken a word. Nor had they been asked whether they had, or had not, agreed upon a verdict. No juror spoke a word during the trial from the time they were impaneled to the time of their discharge.

What did the jury actually do?

...So soon as the judge refused to poll the jury he said, "Gentlemen of the jury, you are discharged," and the jurors left the box.

What, if anything, did the jurors say afterward? Did they think the proceedings were a little strange?

...One of them declared by a bystander that guilty was not his verdict, neither was it the verdict of the other eleven. "  Could I have spoken,"   said he, "I should have answered not guilty, and the men in that jury box would have sustained me."

Why didn't the jury exercise their responsibility, as they had been sworn to do?

...[T]hey did not understand their rights in this respect, and were naturally in awe of a Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the judge must have known that they would be thus awed, or he would not have dared thus to transgress the ordinary rules of law.

If the same thing had happened to a foreign-born man whose right to vote had been denied, and he had gone through a similar trial, what then? How would the press have responded?

...[H]ad he been thus denied a verdict from the jury, the press would have rung out the injustice all over the land.

She makes a pretty good point here.

If one cherished right is trampled on, how easy is it to trample on other rights?

Judge Hunt began with denying to women their citizen's right to vote, and by an easy step passed on to denying that right regarded most sacred of all, the right of trial by jury.

She makes an excellent point here as well. Once the fundamental rights are trampled on, it becomes much easier to attack everything else.

What are we to make of such a trial? Was it, indeed, a travesty of justice or should Susan Anthony have expected the result that she received?

Whatever the answer is to that question (and people have debated it for years), women did not get the right to vote for another half century. In fact, two years after Susan Anthony's ballot did not count, the United States Supreme Court ruled that American Women (although citizens) did not have the right to vote.

0 Question or Comment?
click to read or comment
2 Questions 2 Ponder
click to read and respond
0 It's Awesome!
vote for your favorite

Author: Carole D. Bos, J.D. 5190stories and lessons created

Original Release: Jul 01, 2000

Updated Last Revision: Jul 14, 2019

To cite this story (For MLA citation guidance see easybib or OWL ):

"POST-TRIAL BACKLASH" AwesomeStories.com. Jul 01, 2000. Feb 21, 2020.
Awesome Stories Silver or Gold Membership Required
Awesome Stories Silver or Gold Membership Required
Show tooltips