[aeengine-devel] they not, in that event, occupy, _poli

[Velazques <ove...@sl...>]

 take it, or that he took it by mistake. Just so in a case where, as
sometimes occurs, the laws regulating the right to vote in a State are
of doubtful meaning, and a voter is uncertain whether he has a right to
vote in one town or another, and, upon taking advice from good counsel,
honestly makes up his mind that he has a right to vote in the town of A.
In this belief he applies to the registrars of that town, who upon the
statement of the facts, are of the opinion that he has a right to vote
there, and place his name upon the list, and on election day he votes
there without objection. Now, if he should be prosecuted for illegal
voting, it would not be enough that he acknowledged the fact of voting,
and that the judge was of the opinion that his view of the law was
wrong. There would remain another and most vital question in the case,
and that is, did he intend to vote unlawfully? Now, precisely the wrong
that would be done to the voter in the case we are supposing, by the
judge ordering a verdict of guilty to be entered up, was done by that
course in Miss Anthony's case. She thoroughly believed that she had a
right to vote. In addition to this she had consulted one of the ablest
lawyers in Western New York, who gave it as his opinion that she had a
right to vote, and who testified on the trial that he had given her that
advice. The Act of Congress upon which the prosecution was founded uses
the term "knowingly,"--"shall knowingly vote or attempt to vote in the
name of any other person, or more than once at the same election for any
candidate for the same office, or vote at a place where he may not be
lawfully entitled to vote, or without having a lawful right to vote."
Here most manifestly the term "knowingly" does not apply to the mere
_act_ of voting. It is hardly pos