trial when I, as a citizen of the United States, as a citizen of
the State of New York and city of Rochester, as a person who had
done something at least that might have entitled her to a voice in
speaking for herself and for her class, in all that trial I not
only was denied my right to testify as to whether I voted or not,
but there was not one single woman's voice to be heard nor to be
considered, except as witnesses, save when it came to the judge
asking, "Has the prisoner any thing to say why sentence shall not
be pronounced?" Neither as judge, nor as attorney, nor as jury was
I allowed any person who could be legitimately called my peer to
speak for me.

Then, as you will remember, Mr. Justice Hunt not only pronounced
the verdict of guilty, but a sentence of $100 fine and costs of
prosecution. I said to him, "May it please your honor, I do not
propose to pay it;" and I never have paid it, and I never shall. I
asked your honorable bodies of Congress the next year--in 1874--to
pass a resolution to remit that fine. Both Houses refused it; the
committees reported against it; though through Benjamin F. Butler,
in the House, and a member of your committee, and Matthew H.
Carpenter, in the Senate, there were plenty of precedents brought
forward to show that in the cases of multitudes of men fines had
been remitted. I state this merely to show the need of woman to
speak for herself, to be as judge, to be as juror.

Mr. Justice Hunt in his opinion stated that suffrage was a
fundamental right, and therefore a right that belonged to the
State. It seemed to me that was just as much of a retroversion
of the theory of what is right in our Government as there could
possibly be. Then, after the decision in my case came that of Mrs.