[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.