Tyranny in Rochester.-The arrest and imprisonment in our metropolis jail of the Election Inspectors who acquired the votes of Susan B. Anthony and different ladies, at the polls of the Eighth Ward, some months in the past, is a petty however malicious act of tyranny, of which the officers who are responsible for it should but be ashamed. On the written request of Senator Sargent, the President to-day directed the Attorney-General to organize the necessary papers to remit the advantageous and imprisonment of Hall, Marsh, and others, the Rochester Election Inspectors, who were tried and convicted in June, 1873, of registering Susan B. Anthony and other ladies, and receiving their votes. Said Registrar shall have authority to administer all oaths which could also be obligatory within the registration of voters. Sex offender registration legal guidelines have also been carried out in the United Kingdom after 1996. The introduction of such laws gave place to debates concerning the monitoring and supervision of registrants, as well as their rights to housing (the legality of which was disputed) and whether such registries needs to be open to the public.
The plaintiff additional states, that the defendant, properly realizing that she, as a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, resident as aforesaid, was then and there entitled to all of the privileges and immunities of citizenship, chief among which is the elective franchise, and as such, was entitled to be registered, so as to train said privilege: but, unlawfully intending, contriving, and designing to deprive the plaintiff of said franchise or privilege, then and there knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and corruptly refused to place her title upon the list of registered voters, whereby she was deprived of her right to vote. 1st. Because the stated Supreme Court erred in affirming the judgment of the St. Louis Circuit Court-thereby, in impact, sustaining the demurrer filed in mentioned Circuit Court by the defendant to the petition of the plaintiff. 3. Because the said Supreme Court of Missouri erred in affirming the judgment of the St. Louis Circuit Court-thereby, in impact, declaring that the Constitution and laws of Missouri, earlier than recited, don’t conflict with the Constitution of the United States. That on mentioned day, the plaintiff was a resident of the thirteenth election district of the town and county of St. Louis, within the State of Missouri, and had been so residing in stated county and election district, for your complete interval of twelve months and more, instantly previous said fifteenth day of October, 1872, and for more than twenty years had been and is a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen of the county and State aforesaid.
The practice is towards the plaintiff. Whatever adjustments may have been made in the observe of the States because the time of the sooner amendments to the Constitution, certain it is that at that time, after a jury had been impaneled, there was no method that the accused might be put in jeopardy of life or limb with out his trigger being submitted to twelve males, and their unanimous verdict passing upon the very fact of his guilt or innocence. Therefore, because the high quality has been imposed by a court docket of the United States for an offense triable by jury, without the same being submitted to the jury, and because the court assumed to itself the fitting to enter a verdict without submitting the case to the jury, and so as that the judgment of the House of Representatives, if it concur with the judgment of the committee, may, in probably the most sign and spectacular form, mark its determination to maintain in its integrity the common-legislation proper of trial by jury, your committee suggest that the prayer of the petitioner be granted, and to this end report the next bill, with the recommendation that it do go.
Upon this query it would appear that the judge himself vacillated in the trial, because he permitted evidence to be gone into on each sides as a query of reality, tending to indicate whether the petitioner did or didn’t vote, knowing that she had no proper so to do; but afterward withdrew the consideration of that evidence, upon the actual fact of intention or responsible information, wholly from the jury, and ordered a verdict to be entered up upon his personal determination, with out allowing the question either to be argued or submitted to the jury, or the jury to move upon it. Argument and Brief.-We predict the chief issue in this case is certainly one of fact rather than of legislation. By the order of the choose the defendant was deprived of this right, and if, in this case of minor consequence so far as regards the punishment inflicted, this may be executed, so within the trial for murder or treason a judge could order a verdict of the jury without allowing them to cross upon the fact.