University of South Carolina Libraries
iL IM MRU WATCHMAN, Cvamlldated 4nc t,188 sj* hf iJ?atf lunan ano Soutbron. rahfjaaiii Wednesday and Saturday ?BY? MT1KN fUlUSMING COMPANY SUMTBR. S. C. ^as? 1 flit par annum?la advaace. ?aaarr "vat insertion.Il.ee subsequent laaarUoa.10 j Ceatrec ta for Uuroa month*, or e arm be made at reduced rataa. All aommanleaClona which sub prtvata latereeta will bo ahargad aa advertise aasnta. rto* and tributes of reapeeta be ehatgsd for. * TAX RATIFIED. VOTE8 ALMOST SOLIDLY roi AMENDMENT. MBCmX flu? Bailey fYderal Income Tax Amendment Ooea TtMoagti With a tin ah Doer's LAejaor Inspection fc> Columbia, Feb. H.?Following sen? ator Bailey's addreaa laat night the house this afternoon passed the bill I a Ufr I Eg the Federal income tax suasndment. There were ?>niy three rota against it. n The house killed Mr. Host's bill pro. Mldlne; for an inspection tax on liquor Chipped into the State. resjsnag omm were cunsuMreu. ?UssrV-sssnY^ssUeaaieaasslss?tM^t .L(? ?J^mMF**!!11 linier Oatumhla. Feb. it.?In new of final adjournment Saturday the house to? day continued all second reading ?jhous* Mils. Including special ordere. 'among the bills killed were Included the following: Coagrore'e i'ood roads bead Issue, and his state highway bill, Patterson's dog muasllng bill. Selber? bill providing for four State auditors. Gibson s antt-cigarette bill. h. The whole time of the mate was ? Iahen up with the asylum debate. No vote was reached and not even third vt?4elBiltttjgJ|||4jr^^|L||je house at rang opposition today to ing penitentiary convicts by vot down two to one. the resolution authorising the penitentiary board to make a new lease. The preaent lease expires In one year. Leasing was op* posed on humanit?r an grounds. The senate continued the debate on jaJBe resolution calling for the resig? nation of Dr. BabcQck and the asy lum ragenta. It will probably reach a vote tonight. The opponeute of the resolution have clear majority. A careful poll made today showa only twelve votea for the resolution, y After a sharp debate the house "lulled Senator Carlisle's bill prohibit lag children under sixteen working in cotton mills after night, and Car rlatc'e material and labor Hen bill. It pa med Senator Cllfton'a bill pension? ing certain widows. Sullivan's bill pro? hibiting minors playing pool, and ^Crossen ? bill making spitting on floor of passenger coaches a misdemeanor. The bills passed will be ordered rati? fied tomorrow. BIGAMIST ARRESTED. of Bigamy. Alken County Man la Arrested In Georgia and it to South Carolina. Spertanburg. Feb. If.?Dr. H. J. Weeka of Wagener. Alken county, who was married here on August 9. I HOB. to Miss Sarah E. Hmlth of this city under the name of Dr. J. H. Hamilton, was lodged In Jail here yes? terday on the charge of bigamy. Soon after the marriage here It developed that Weeke had a wife living In Alken county and a reward for hla arrest was offered by Oov. Anael. He and hla second wife had disappeared be? fore this st*p was taken, going to New Mexico. It la believed here. Weeks traveled from place to place In Mexico. New Mexico and finally came to a little city In Qeorgla. quiet and away from his old acquaintances, he thought. Rut not so, soon a gen? tleman, a former neighbor and ac? quaintance at Wagener. now residing at that point, walked Into the drug store, where he had engaged himself is clerk and recognised him Imme Jlatly. This recognition Is said to have led to hie later arrest. A reward arf $100 was offered by Oov. Ansel tor his arreet. He will probably be tried at Spartanburg. E. C. Knapp, who will have charge of the monster "School of Methods," to be held In Cincinnati, February ll-tl. by Sunday school workers, haa the distinction of being the only man In the world who holds the poaltlon of superintendent of two large Sun? day schools?the Union Park Congre? gational the First Evangelical, both of Chicago. ?hed April, I860. 'Be Just iui 1. _8UM1 THE COURTS DECISION. SYNOPSIS OF OPINION IN TILL MAN CASE. The Law of the State ns Applied to Tt?e Bights of Parents In Disposing of Minor Children. After briefly setting forth the con? tentions of both sides and quoting the act ander which young TUlman ?gave his ohlldren to Senator and Mrs. TUl? man. the decision says "On behalf of the petitioner, It Is contended that statute should be construed to con? fer on the father the right to dispose of the custody of his ohlldren only after his own death. This position is untenable. It la true that the stat? ute <>f 12, Charles 11 C. 24, adopted In this State without change, ir 1848 (2 Stat 707), clearly limit* d such power to the disposal of the custody of his mln>r children to take effect onlv at the time of his death; that the first statute was entirely repealed by the '?vised statute containing the sections above quoted (except the amendment of 1887, providing for disposition by deal or wHl by the mother, the fath? er being dead), was enacted, not as an amendment, but as. a separate statute. When so enacted, It was placed under the general head 'Guardian and Ward' and under the subhead 'Minors,' the words limiting the application of the law to the cus? tody of the ohlldren after the death of the father were omitted from the new statute and the omission clearly signifies the Intention not to limit the power of dlsposllon, which it con? ferred on the father, to custody after his death. "The fact that the statute was placed in the revised codes of 1S82, 1898 and 1902, under the head, 'tes? tamentary guardians, might be re? garded as significant of the intention, if the case were one of doubtful con? struction, but the place assigned to a statute in the civil code can not con? trol the plain meaning expressed in the statute Itself. \t is therefore manifest that what? ever power of disposition was con? ferred by the act on the father ex | tended to the custody of children during his life. "The next position taken on behalf of the petitioner Is that the deed to the respondents could have no effect because there was a prior outstand? ing agreement between B. R. TUl? man, Jr., and his wife, acquiesced In by the respondent, which provided that during the year 1909, the hus? band and wife should alternately have the custody of the children. The argument Is that the first agreement was binding on she husband and the respondents, until It had been revok? ed by consent of the wife, or had ex? pired by Its own limitation. ' The argument falls, because the first agreement was made in view of tie then existing separation of the husband and wife and there was af? terward a reconciliation. "Any agreement made in contem? plation of broken family ties and pro \ldlng for the continuation of the breach was annulled by the reconcil? iation and the renewal of united family life. "This brings us to the Inquiry, what Is the extent of the power of disposi? tion, conferred on the father. Did the general assembly Intend to confer ar? bitrary power, regardless of the ights and welfare of the ohlldren, and of the family rights of the moth? er, or. did it intend to confer upon him the power to transfer such rights as he himself had at the date of the deed, without infringing upon the rights of the children to be placed In the custody of their mother, and of the right of the mother to have their custody, in case the father had for? feited his right by his conduct?" "We think the proposition capable of demonstrating that if the act is to be construed as conferring arbltarary power on the father, It is violatlve of constitutional rights. The constitu tton of this State provided: "The privileges and Immunities of citizens of this .State and of the United States under this constitution shall not be abridged, nor shall any person be de? prived of life, liberty or property with out due process of law, nor shall any person be deprived of the equal pro? tection of the laws.' (Article 1, sec? tion 6.). In the right of freedom from unlawful restraint Is embraced the right of the enjoyment of all those privileges and Immunities which belong to the citizen of a free country. These privileges and Immu? nities are from their nature Incap able of limitation by exact definition. For tin purposes of this discussion, It Is sufficient to say that they clear? ly embrace family rights; that is, the right of parents to the care and cus? tody of their children, and the right of children to receive from their pa? rents maintenance and care. But, be* id Fear not?Let all the ends Thou Aim PER. 8. 0., SATURDj yond this there is a liberty of child? ren above the control of their par-1 ents, which the courts of England, and this country have always en? forced. I "When the parent, in asserting his claim to the custody of the child, i disregards the correlative right of the ] child to care and maintenance at his i hands, it is universally held that the i right of the parent is at an end, \nd i the child for itself, or another on its i behalf, may assert the custody and control of the parent to be an Illegal restraint upon its liberty. This lib-1 erty of the child, the right to be free 1 from such Illegal restraint of the pa rent, the constitution forbids to be 1 taken away, except by due process of i law. Within the protection of this I provision of the constitution fall also I certain rights of the parents against each other with respect to the custody I of their children. The father, being I charged with the support of his chll-1 dren ordinarily his right to their cu3-1 tody is superior to that of the moth-1 er, but when the father relinquishes I his right to the custody, or forfeits | by his conduct, there can be no doubt I that the mother, under her family I right, is entitled to the care and cus-1 tody and care of her child. "In other words, as soon as the I father's right falls away, the moth-1 er's right immediately takes its place, I and must be recognized by the court, I unless it be relinquished or forfeited. I The rights of the father and mother I are both subject to the still higher I right of the child to have its welfare I safeguarded. It seems perfectly clear! that the general assemby can not em- I power the father, at his own will, to I deprive the mother and child of th*se I legal rights so loug established as ele- i incuts of personal liberty. "If these family rights of the moth-1 er and children were not within the I protection of the constitution, under! statutes like this, the father could I exercise a tyranny revolting to all I sense of justice and conceptions of I personal liberty. He could at any I moment, capriciously break up his I family, take all his Infant children I from their mother without her con-1 sent and bestow them upon str?ng-1 t*rs; and the courts would be power-1 Uss to give any relief, though manl-1 festly such a course of conduct would I Itself be plenary proof of relinquish-1 ment of the duties of the parental I office. I "The argument comes to this: The! guaranty of personal liberty express-1 ed in the constitution means, above I all else that no human being under! I the protection of the constitution, can I be placed under subjection to the ar- I bltrary power of disposition and con- I trol of any other human being. The I legislature can not provide that the I i father shall make final disposition of I ! the child's custody and thus settle I I an issue contested with him, In his I I own favor. 1 "There Is another provision of the I constitution equally fatal to the stat- I ute, regarded as an attempt to confer I upon the father arbitrary power to I grant the custody of his children to I any other person, he may select, the I constitution requires that the leglsla- I tive, executive and judicial depart-1 meats shall be forever separate and I distinct from each other. The same I provision was in the constitution in I force when the statute under consid- I eration was passed. The question of I the custody of minors or their illegal I restraint has always been recognized I as a judicial question to be determin-1 ed by the courts. | "From these considerations, It fol- 1 lows that If the act under consldera- I tlon be construed as an attempt to I give the father the absolute right to I dispose of the custody of his children I by deed or will, it must be held un- I constitutional. While the father can I not be empowered to convey away I the rights of the children, or of the I rights of the mother with respect to I their custody, there Is no reason why the general assembly may not pro? vide that his deed should be binding on him. The result of this construc? tion of the net would be to give effect, against the father himself to any deed made by him in accordance with the statute, so that after he had made such a deed he could not, as against th" grantee, demand back the cus? tody which he had voluntarily relin? quished. Accordingly, the validity of the statute, to this extent is recog? nized. "From these considerations, it fol? lows that the rights of the children and their mother, the petitioner, are unaffected by the deed from B. R. Tlllman. Jr., to the respondents: and, hence the duty devolves upon the court to determine whether the cus? tody of the children should be award? ed to the petitioner, their mother or to the respondents, their grandpar ens. "No claim Is made by the father to the custody of his children. On the a't At be thy Country's, Thy Cod's an A.Y. FEBRUARY 19, contrary, In his deed to the respon? dents, he expressly states as one of the reasons for making it, that he does not w.'sh to undertake the re? sponsibilities of rearing them. The issue, then, is between the petition? er, in the maternal right, and the paternal grandfather and grand? mother, claiming under deed from the father, and alleging the mother to be unfit to be entrusted with the rearing of the children. In the deci? sion of this issue, the court should give great, if not conclusive, force to the witness of the father, expressed In the deed entrusting the custody of his children to another fitted to rear them, if the family relation was broken not by his own fault, but by the fault of lncompetency of the mother. On the other hand, if the family relation was broken, by the taking of the children from the mother and bestowing them on the respondents against her protest, when there was not on her part such Improper conduct or lncompetency as to constitute a just reason for such extreme action, then the execution of the deed, and the taking away of the children could not be regarded other than acts in themselves so violative of the father's obligation to both mother and children as to call for the interference of the court In their behalf. "This we think, presents the ulti? mate issue in the controversy. The version of the petitioner has been al? ready set out. The respondents in their return make the general charges that th ptltloneT has always been disrespectful toward her husband and implacable in her dislike to his fam? ily, and they show that this dis? like extended to unbecoming express? ions of her antipathy In a letter to her husband. They express the opin? ion that the former intemperate habits of the husband were due to his unhappy marlage; In support of their claim that the deed was justi? fied, and that they should retain the custody of the children, they Intro? duced an affidavit of B. R. Tillman, Jr., intended to show the petitioner's unfitness to have charge of her chil? dren. In the affidavit, B. R. Tillman, Jr., admits that the faults attributed to him by his wife, then separation, hit own contrition and their consequent reconciliation avowing, however, that he has entirely given up the use of intoxicants. He says that he was constrained to give the custody of his children to his father and mother,! because of the unfltnese of his wife to | rear them in that she was selfish, had taught his children to hate his family, v.-as arrogant toward him; showing a disposition to consider him and his family beneath her, and In that she hcd very little education and had expressed ideas upon the most sacred relations of life, which were absolutely contrary to the best interests of any home, and under which no child could be properly raised; he further avows that he sent the children away with his mother after his wife had angrily re? fused permission that they should go and remain until she had recovered her strength after the illness from which she w-as suffering. His ac- j count of the separation conflicts with that of the petitioner in that he avows that after he had sent the children away without her consent, she left their apartments and refused to communicate with him until the children should be returned. He ad? mits that he made the deed attempt? ing to permanently deprive her of them against her bitter opposition. "We shall not undertake to pass on the differences between the state? ments of the husband and wife as to the trouble which led to the separa? tion. We think there can be no doubt that the husband brought it on by sending the children away, and that there was nothing in the con? duct of the wife justifying the in? ference that she had forfeited her right to he with and care for her children, or showing her to be In? competent or unfit for maternal du? ties. Her right to ihe privilege of having her children is greatly strengthened by the fact that they are girls of very tender years. Even in an issue between the fathr and mother, the court will usually grant such children to the custody of the mother unless there are strong rea? sons against doing so. "The conclusion of this court is that the children are in the unlawful custody of the respondents, and that the petitioner Is entitled to their cus? tody. "It is, therefore, ordered and ad? judged that the respondents, B. R. Tillman. Sr.. and his wife, Mrs. I, S. Tillman, deliver up the children to the petitioner, Mrs. Lucy Dugas Till? man, and that she have and retain the custody of them during their minority or until it be otherwise ad Judged." (1 Truth's. THE TRtJ 1910 Sew 8' GOOD BILLS KILLED. V - LEGISLATORS USE THE A v OX CALENDAR. When Time to Adjourn Comes Law Makers Make Short Work of Pro? posed Laws, Many of Which Have Great Merit. Columbia, Feb. 16.?A lot of mighty good propositions went into the leg's latlve waste basket yesterday in strik? ing out of all bills in senate or house that had not passed the second read? ing in the house where they originat? ed. A numbr of them will be pocket? ed by the members who hope to re? turn next year by the sufferance of their constituents and make another trial of their merits on the calendar. The chances are, however, that there will not be over fifty of the members of the present house returned for an? other session. That has been the ex? perience of the past, and there is lit? tle prospect of a change. Among those who have announced their intention to run for "something better" or who are spoken of are John G. Richards for governor, Speaker Whaley and Chas. A. Smith for lieutenant gover? nor, M. L. Smith and Coke D. Mann for congress, Messrs. Scarborough, DIxon and Wlngo for railroad com? missioner. The others are talking among themselves very much of the coming campaign and whether they will try again for a seat in the house or senate. Several of the members of the house will try for the senate. Among th~ bills laid over by the blanket order are the following of significance. Mr. Cosgrove's highway bond prop? osition. Mr. Patterson's muzzling of dogs when rabies appears in any commu? nity. Mr. Seibels' for the appointment of State auditors. Mr. Gibson's to prevent the sale of cigarettes. Mr. Patterson's to reorganize the State board of health, all of which were special orders in the house. Senator Smith's high license bill. Senator Ralnsford's to limit the number of dispensaries in any jpounty. Senator Griffin's to provide restric? tions on the transfer of pupils in com? mon school districts. Senator Graydon's to prevent com? bination among the insurance com? panies to control rates, all of which were special orders in the senate. Among the following are a number that are in both senate and house: To establish a board of charities and corrections. To declare it a misdemeanor to elect any person not a bona fide stockhold? er, a director in any bank. To require insurance companies to invest a part of their reserve in South Carolina business in taxable South Carolina secureties. A joint resolution looking to an amendment in the matter of biennial sessions of the legislature. Requiring railroad companies tJ take passengers on freight trains. A liquor local option referendum bill including the license feature. Requiring a board of corporations to enforce stockholders' liability. To allow circuit judges in the State traveling expenses. To provide for a tax commission. To define intra-state shipments of .'reight. To make the insurance commisslcn er's office take charge of and wind-up bankrupt corporations. To establish agricultural schools, one bill calling for one in each dis tiict and one for four. Another compulsory education law. Several child labor bills in each ?>ia :ich. To declare th;: law as to che right 0-* oower. To abolish tu'- on fees la Clemson and Winthrop. To provide for a jury trial of facts in certain cases. To provide free books In the public schools. To regulate the assessment of mu? nicipal license taxes on insurance companies. To require railroad companies to file a list of all passes issued by them in the State with the railroad commis? sion. To require county officers to make monthly statements to the grand Juries. To change the law in regard to the adoption of text books. To provide for the registration of teachers with the superintendent of education. To make sexual Intercourse between whites and negroes a felony. To require secret orders to take out a license. To amend the constitution by in? creasing the population necesasry in new counties. SOUTHRON, Established June, ISM jfc i- ?? es?Vol. XXX. !Jo. 51. To restrict the holding of special courts and doing away with the pro? vision for special judges. Several bills to regulate the award of free scholarships in the State so as to prevent rich men's children from taking the same, and som<_> of the bills providing for punishment for the pa? rent who takes advantage of the lib? erality of the State intended for poor people's children. To Increase the number of days al? lowed Clemson trustees to meet. To prohibit corporal punishment in the schools except with consent of the parent. To establish a State board of em? balming. To prohibit whiskey houses adver? tising in the State. To require mortgages of crops to have the consent of the landowner. The resolutions for the investigating of the railroad commission and the express company. To regulate power companies in the State and ward off monopoly. To exempt building and loan asso? ciations from taxes. Two bills to fix the salaries of State officers. For the uniformity of warehouse receipts. A resolution to empower the Ser? geant at Arms to purchase new fur? niture for the State House, and a res? olution to authorize the Secretary of State to install a "vacuum cleaner" system for the State House. To define the qualification of civil engineers and architects in the State. To make It a capital offense to kid? nap a child and threaten its death to secure ransom. To require Clerks of Court to keep standard wights and measures. To Incorporate the trustees of the Columbia canal and give them power to develop the property and appur? tenances thereto. To increase the power of the insur? ance commissioner and his deputy in the matter of investigation of incen? diary fires. The creation of a conservation com? mission with especial reference to pr*- ? serving the' forests and punishing carelessness which causes fires and waste, of public wealth. To regulate the use of automobiles in the State. To make failure to pay for labor or K materials prima *acie evidence of fraud. To require medical certificates be? fore children can be employed in any industrial concrn. To regulate the practice of barber ing, and for the protection of the pat? rons of barber shops against infec? tion. There have been so many b .lls pass? ed requiring the erection of depots at stations that one would not believe that any more stations without depots could be found, but there are still a number of such bills on the calendar. The calendar is cut down from 39 pages yesterday to 16 today and it la likely that a number of the senate bills will also be left at the post, for there will be no chance on earth of getting through even those. Uncon tested matter is about all that has been gotten through this year, and that Included a great deal that ought to have been contested. The general assembly will adjourn, as usual, about day light Sunday morning with half a dozen sleepy members upholding the speaker and president of the senate and a few very tired clerks in the en? grossing department and lagged out solicitors. HITTER AGAINST TILLMAN. Crepe-Tied Flowers Sent Him From Edgefield for His "Political Coffin."* Edgefield, Feb. 16.?A wreath of white hyacinths tide with a bow of black crepe was sent to Unl:ed States Senator, B. R. Tillman by express this morning "from the mothers of Edgefield," to be used "as a decora? tion for his political coffin." It is re? ported that Mrs. Lucy Dugas Tillman with her two children will return to Edgefield the last of the present week, and plans are being made to have the community turn out en maaae with a band from Augusta to greet her. A reception will he arranged in her honor at the re.^'dence of one of the most prominent citizens, it is stated. SENATOR TILLMAN ILL. Suffers Attack of Dizziness?.His Con? dition Not Serious. Washington, Feb. . 16.?Senator Tillman. who suffered an attack of dizziness early this morning, and who was at once conveyed to his apartment at the Balfour, war reported resting easy tonight. It is believed th.it with care he will be all right and suff< r no ill effects from today's slig it in? disposition. Reports of his serious illness are unfounded.