Q. (Handing the witness a paper.) Please look at the paper now shown you and see if it contains the minutes you kept upon that occasion?
A. It does.
Q. Turn to the evidence of Susan B. Anthony!
A. I have it.
Q. Did she, upon that occasion, state that she consulted
or talked with
Judge Henry R. Selden, of Rochester, in relation to her right to vote?
JUDGE SELDEN: I object to that upon the ground that it is incompetent, that if they refuse to allow her to be sworn here, they should be excluded from producing any evidence that she gave elsewhere, especially when they want to give the version which the United States officer took of her evidence.
THE COURT: Go on.
By MR. CROWLEY:
Q. State whether she stated on that examination, under oath, that she had talked or consulted with Judge Henry R. Selden in relation to her right to vote?
A. She did.
Q. State whether she was asked, upon that examination, if the advice given her by Judge Henry R. Selden would or did make any difference in her action in voting, or in substance that?
A. She stated on the cross-examination, “I should have made the same endeavor to vote that I did had I not consulted Judge Selden. I didn’t consult any one before I registered. I was not influenced by his advice in the matter at all; have been resolved to vote, the first time I was at home 30 days, for a number of years.”
Cross-examination by MR. VAN VOORHEES:
Q. Mr. Pound, was she asked there if she had any doubt about her right to vote, and did she answer “Not a particle?”
A. She stated “Had no doubt as to my right to vote,” on the direct examination.
Q. There was a stenographic reporter there, was there not?
A. A reporter was there taking notes.
Q. Was not this question put to her “Did you have any doubt yourself of your right to vote?” and did she not answer “Not a particle?”
THE COURT: Well, he says so, that she had no doubt of her right to vote.
JUDGE SELDEN: I beg leave to state, in regard to my own testimony, Miss Anthony informs me that I was mistaken in the fact that my advice was before her registry. It was my recollection that it was on her way to the registry, but she states to me now that she was registered and came immediately to my office. In that respect I was under a mistake.
ARGUMENT OF MR. SELDEN FOR THE DEFENDANT.
The defendant is indicted under the 19th section of the Act of Congress of May 31, 1870 (16 St. at L., 144,), for “voting without having a lawful right to vote.”
The words of the Statute, so far as they are material in this case, are as follows:
“If at any election for representative or delegate in the Congress of the United States, any person shall knowingly ... vote without having a lawful right to vote ... every such person shall be deemed guilty of a crime, ... and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500, or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or by both, in the discretion of the court, and shall pay the costs of prosecution.”