FOOTNOTES:
[61] The legal treatment of the deaf, however, in past times has not been as severe as has been often supposed. Both the Justinian Code and the Civil Law, as well as the Common Law, granted a number of rights to the deaf, these being in some cases as far as the policy of the law would permit. In a few instances a not unsympathetic attitude was displayed towards them. In the early Roman law and in some other systems word of mouth was necessary to accomplish certain legal acts, and this of course bore hardly upon the deaf. In all cases it was the deaf-mute from birth who suffered most. On this subject, see A. C. Gaw, "The Legal Status of the Deaf," 1907; H. P. Peet, "Legal Rights and Responsibilities of the Deaf," 1857 (Proceedings of Convention of American Instructors, iv., p. 17).
[62] Constitution, 1890, sec. 243. The blind are also included in the exemption.
[63] In New York we find an early reference to the deaf in the rules adopted in 1761 by the state assembly regarding suffrage qualifications in the election of its own members, one of which rules declared that "no man deaf and dumb from his nativity has a vote," though this may have been partly due to the fact that nearly all voting then was viva voce. William Smith, "History of the Late Province of New York," 1830, ii., p. 358.
[64] Laws, p. 110. A Kentucky statute refers to "idiots and those by speech or sign incapable" of understanding (Stat., 1894, § 2149), but the deaf may not necessarily be included.
[65] Cod. Laws, 1865, ch. 3, § 2; 1884, § 1378.
[66] Civ. Code, 1838, § 1852; 1898, § 1591.
[67] In 1849 New York required the masters of ships landing in New York City to report to the mayor what passengers were deaf, blind or insane. Laws, ch. 350. See also Laws, 1851, ch. 523; 1881, ch. 427. See Public Statutes of Massachusetts, 1882, p. 468. The present United States immigration laws do not directly exclude the deaf, but they have been thought at times to have been made to bear unduly upon them.
[68] Code, 1911, § 559. The application is to "proprietors of circuses and other migratory companies."
[69] In a few states, as California and New York, attempts have been made to secure laws barring the deaf from licenses to run automobiles. Such measures, however, are to be regarded less as discrimination against the deaf than for the public safety.
[70] Laws, 1776, ch. 20.
[71] Laws, 1818, p. 342; 1840, p. 345; Code, 1911, § 3089.
[72] Laws, p. 128.
[73] Laws, 1838, p. 40; 1841, p. 573.
[74] Rev. Stat., 1883, ch. 142, § 2.
[75] Digest, 1894, § 3571; 1904, § 3760.
[76] Stat., 1872, p. 672; Rev. Stat., 1909, § 407. In Kansas by opinion of the attorney-general, the juvenile court laws do not apply to the deaf.
[77] Gen. Stat., 1898, p. 2672. Abuse or ill-treatment of an inmate of a state institution for the deaf, the blind and other classes may be punished by fine or imprisonment.
[78] Laws, 1908, p. 55. It is made a misdemeanor to abduct or kidnap inmates of "deaf and dumb and blind hospitals".
[79] In several states there are provisions in regard to the employment of interpreters for the deaf. See Code of Georgia, 1911, § 5864; Gen. Laws of Rhode Island, 1909, § 3855.
[80] Laws, p. 202.
[81] Laws, ch. 76.
[82] Laws, 1878, ch. 52; 1880, p. 20.
[83] Laws, 1895, ch. 120; Ann. Code, 1896, § 686.
[84] Purdon's Digest, 1903, p. 5023. In Georgia persons deaf and blind are expressly permitted to make wills if properly scrutinized. Code, 1911, § 3844.
[85] See Laws of New Hampshire, 1895, ch. 131. This relief is here known as the "Granite State Mission". See also Deaf-Mutes' Journal, Feb. 9, 1911.
[86] See Laws, 1896, p. 419; 1898, p. 212; 1900, p. 369.
[87] This seems to have been begun in 1839, and continued nearly fifty years. See Laws, 1839, ch. 329; 1858, ch. 546; 1886, ch. 330. The sum of $100 was first granted to the Radii, and later appropriations to succeeding publications.
[88] Laws, p. 330. The law was secured by the efforts of the deaf themselves. See Deaf-Mutes' Journal, May 22, 1913.
[89] See Houst. Crim. Cas. (Del.), 291; 8 Jones L. (N. C.), 136; 14 Mass., 207. This last case was one of larceny. See also I. L. Peet, "Psychical Status and Criminal Responsibility of the Totally Uneducated Deaf and Dumb," 1872 (Journal of Psychological Medicine, Jan., 1872); Annals, xvii., 1872, p. 65.
[90] 37 S. W. (Tex.), 440; 118 Mo., 127; 39 S. C., 318; 1 Den. (N. Y.), 19; 23 Col., 314; 3 N. M., 134.
[91] See 16 Ohio St., 455, where a guardian was allowed; 41 N. J. Eq., 409, where the deaf were said to be liable to guardianship.
[92] See 1 Jones Eq. (N. C.), 221. In 4 Johns. Ch., 441, a New York case in 1820, it was said by Chancellor Kent that the deaf and dumb were considered prima facie as insane, incapable of making a will and fit subjects for guardianship, by the civil law. The presumption was due, he said, to the fact that "want of hearing and speech exceedingly cramps the powers of the mind," but it was to be overcome by proof. In this case the presumption was overruled. The implication, however, never applied to the deaf not born so. At present there is no presumption in connection with wills, deeds, witnessing, or guardianship. See 3 Conn., 299; 27 Gratt. (Va.), 190; 6 Ga., 324; 3 Ired. (N. C.), 535. In the Missouri case, quoted above, it was said: "Presumption of idiocy does not seem to obtain in modern practice, at least not in the United States."
[93] The deaf as a class may be said to be strongly opposed to nearly all forms of legal treatment different from those of their fellow-citizens. In Texas, where they have been exempted from a personal or property tax, they have made formal protest against the exemption. Annals, l., 1905, p. 263; Report of Mississippi School, 1911, p. 72. They have, as another instance, voiced opposition to the release of criminals on the ground of their deafness. See Proceedings of Convention of National Association of the Deaf, ii., 1883, p. 16.