Newspaper Page Text
IM MRU WATCHMAN,
Cvamlldated 4nc t,188
sj* hf iJ?atf lunan ano Soutbron.
rahfjaaiii Wednesday and Saturday
MT1KN fUlUSMING COMPANY
SUMTBR. S. C.
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.
VOTE8 ALMOST SOLIDLY
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.
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
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?
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
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
?hed April, I860.
'Be Just iui
THE COURTS DECISION.
SYNOPSIS OF OPINION IN TILL
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
"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
"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?
"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
"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?
"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
"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
"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?
"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
GOOD BILLS KILLED. V
LEGISLATORS USE THE A v OX
When Time to Adjourn Comes Law
Makers Make Short Work of Pro?
posed Laws, Many of Which Have
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
Mr. Cosgrove's highway bond prop?
Mr. Patterson's muzzling of dogs
when rabies appears in any commu?
Mr. Seibels' for the appointment of
Mr. Gibson's to prevent the sale of
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
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
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
To provide for a tax commission.
To define intra-state shipments of
To make the insurance commisslcn
er's office take charge of and wind-up
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
To declare th;: law as to che right
To abolish tu'- on fees la Clemson
To provide for a jury trial of facts
in certain cases.
To provide free books In the public
To regulate the assessment of mu?
nicipal license taxes on insurance
To require railroad companies to
file a list of all passes issued by them
in the State with the railroad commis?
To require county officers to make
monthly statements to the grand
To change the law in regard to the
adoption of text books.
To provide for the registration of
teachers with the superintendent of
To make sexual Intercourse between
whites and negroes a felony.
To require secret orders to take out
To amend the constitution by in?
creasing the population necesasry in
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
To Increase the number of days al?
lowed Clemson trustees to meet.
To prohibit corporal punishment in
the schools except with consent of the
To establish a State board of em?
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
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
For the uniformity of warehouse
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
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?
To increase the power of the insur?
ance commissioner and his deputy in
the matter of investigation of incen?
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
To require medical certificates be?
fore children can be employed in any
To regulate the practice of barber
ing, and for the protection of the pat?
rons of barber shops against infec?
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
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.