THE COURT:  I don’t think it is necessary for you to spend time in argument, Mr. Crowley.  I think upon the last authority cited by the counsel there is no defense in this case.  It is entirely clear that where there is a distinct judicial act, the party performing the judicial act is not responsible, civilly or criminally, unless corruption is proven, and in many cases not when corruption is proven.  But where the act is not judicial in its character—­where there is no discretion—­then there is no legal protection.  That is the law, as laid down in the authority last quoted, and the authority quoted by Judge Selden in his opinion.  It is undoubtedly good law.  They hold expressly in that case that the inspectors are administrative officers, and not judicial officers.

Now, this is the point in the case, in my view of it:  If there was any case in which a female was entitled to vote, then it would be a subject of examination.  If a female over the age of 21 was entitled to vote, then it would be within the judicial authority of the inspectors to examine and determine whether in the given case the female came within that provision.  If a married woman was entitled to vote, or if a married woman was not entitled to vote, and a single woman was entitled to vote, I think the inspectors would have a right in a case before them, to judge upon the evidence whether the person before them was married or single.  If they decided erroneously, their judicial character would protect them.  But under the law of this state, as it stands, under no circumstances is a woman entitled to vote.  When Miss Anthony, Mrs. Leyden and the other ladies came there and presented themselves for registry, and presented themselves to offer their votes, when it appeared that they were women—­that they were of the female sex—­the power and authority of the inspectors was at an end.  When they act upon a subject upon which they have no discretion, I think there is no judicial authority.  There is a large range of discretion in regard to the votes offered by the male sex.  If a man offers his vote, there is a question whether he is a minor—­whether he is 21 years of age.  The subject is within their jurisdiction.  If they decide correctly, it is well; if they decide erroneously, they act judicially, and are not liable.  If the question is whether the person presenting his vote is a foreigner or naturalized, or whether he has been a resident of the state or district for a sufficient length of time, the subject is all within their jurisdiction, and they have a right to decide, and are protected if they decide wrong.

But upon the view which has been taken of this question of the right of females to vote, by the United States Court at Washington, and by the adjudication which was made this morning, upon this subject there is no discretion, and therefore I must hold that it affords no protection.

In that view of the case, is there anything to go to the jury?