First, the deaf have been regarded as mentally deficient or incapable of certain civic acts, and discriminatory laws have been enacted. Next, the deaf have been thought to need special consideration or protection on the part of the state, and laws have been pa.s.sed for the appointment of guardians or otherwise for their security or benefit. The third cla.s.s of legislation is where the state bases its action upon the supposed weakness of the deaf, their "physical disability," as it is frequently termed, and here we have a series of what may be called negative benefactions, designed to make less hard the way of the deaf. Such special provision has consisted chiefly in the remission of taxes in certain instances or of some other form of more or less direct a.s.sistance.
LEGISLATION DISCRIMINATORY RESPECTING THE DEAF
Legislation which may be termed discriminatory in respect to the deaf has really been of but slight extent.[63] In Georgia we find an enactment of 1840,[64] in which the deaf were to be regarded _pro tanto_ as idiots, so far as concerned the managing of their estates, though this was in fact intended for their protection. In New Mexico a law has been enacted, forbidding those deaf by birth from making wills, unless their intention is declared in writing;[65] and in Louisiana a deaf man is incapable of acting as a witness to a testament.[66] In several states, as New York and Ma.s.sachusetts, there have been enactments in regard to deaf-mute immigrants together with other cla.s.ses who might be likely to become a public charge, with the exaction of bond as security.[67] In Georgia[68] there is an enactment in reference to various itinerant concerns which might leave deaf persons, as well as others, in the state as public charges.[69]
LEGISLATION IN PROTECTION OF THE DEAF
Legislation of the second cla.s.s, where the deaf are thought to require particular consideration or protection, has likewise been infrequent.
The first instance is an enactment of Ma.s.sachusetts in 1776,[70]
relating to the appointment, on certain occasions, of guardians for the deaf, especially those deaf "from their nativity," together with other persons--which is probably the earliest statutory reference to the deaf in America. A later example is an enactment in Georgia in 1818,[71] and still in force, providing for the appointment of guardians, on somewhat the same order as that which we have indicated, for deaf and dumb persons incapable of managing their estates. In New Jersey in 1838[72] a law was enacted, forbidding deaf persons under seventeen years of age to be bound out as apprentices. In Ohio a statute also of 1838[73] provided for guardians for the deaf, and several modern statutes are somewhat of this nature. In Maine the deaf cannot be sent to the reform school.[74]
In Arkansas[75] and Missouri[76] it is provided that the court may appoint guardians for deaf persons from fourteen to twenty-one years of age in case of the death of a parent. Of somewhat different character, but still for the protection of the deaf, is the enactment in several states, as Wisconsin[77] and Virginia,[78] where injury or abuse of the deaf is made a matter of special attention in the law.
LEGISLATION IN AID OF THE DEAF
Examples of legislation designed to be of material aid to the deaf are rather more common, the chief of which, as we have noted, is the exemption from the payment of some personal or property tax.[79] Thus in Missouri we find a statute of 1843[80] allowing a deaf man to be exempt from the poll tax and the tax on property up to $300. Indiana in 1848[81] exempted its deaf and blind citizens from a poll tax and a property tax up to $500. Mississippi[82] exempted these cla.s.ses from the road duty in 1878, and two years later from the poll tax as well, this exemption being incorporated in the state const.i.tution, as we have seen.
Tennessee[83] in 1895 also exempted from the poll tax the deaf, the blind and those incapable of labor. In Pennsylvania legislation seems to have gone the furthest in its desire to be of material help to the deaf, for here we find the deaf with the blind exempted from the penalties which usually apply to tramps.[84] Such are instances of this form of legislation, but similar legislation has been enacted in other states.
Very rare are instances where the state makes special provision for the care of, or extends special poor relief to, any of its deaf population.
The chief example seems to be the action of some of the New England states with their so-called "missions for the deaf." These are a.s.sociations, composed in great part of the deaf and engaged in various forms of mission work, and to them state funds are granted to aid the aged, infirm and helpless deaf. By this plan Maine is said to have been without a deaf-mute pauper in ten years. The amounts allowed, however, for this purpose are not large, being $200 a year in Maine and $150 in New Hampshire.[85] In Ohio the counties are allowed to contract with private homes for the maintenance of the aged and infirm deaf--there being but one such in the state, that supported by the deaf themselves--and the state board of charities is given power to remove deaf persons thereto from the county infirmaries.[86]
Instances are likewise rare where the state makes a distinct appropriation of money for the benefit of the deaf other than for schools. We have one instance in New York where the state for a certain number of years allowed a small sum to the publishers of a paper for the benefit of poor deaf-mutes.[87]
As a last species of legislation in aid of the deaf, we have a single enactment of quite different character from that which we have hitherto found, and of later appearance. This is the law enacted in Minnesota in 1913,[88] which provides for a division for the deaf in the state bureau of labor. Its duties are to
Collect statistics of the deaf, ascertain what trades or occupations are most suitable for them and best adapted to promote their interests, ... use [its] best efforts to aid them in securing such employment as they may be best fitted to engage in, keep a census and obtain facts, information and statistics as to their condition in life with a view to the betterment of their lot, and endeavor to obtain statistics and information of the conditions of labor and employment and education in other states with a view to promoting the general welfare of the deaf in this state.
Such legislation may prove highly beneficial to the deaf, not only in rendering very desirable aid to them, but also in offering means of learning very important facts as to their condition.
TENOR OF COURT DECISIONS AFFECTING THE DEAF
The opinions of the courts of law in regard to the deaf have, as we have noted, rather revolved upon the mental capacity of the deaf in certain proceedings, and upon their competence in certain legal relations. These judicial expressions have in the main referred to four relations of the deaf in the law: 1. in their responsibility for crime; 2. in acting as witnesses; 3. in requiring guardians; and 4. in the making of wills and contracts generally.
As to the responsibility of the deaf man for his misdeeds, there has been in times past more or less presumption against it, especially if he were born deaf and were without education; but to-day he is quite generally held fully answerable for his crimes and misdemeanors, and his deafness cannot mitigate his punishment.[89] As a witness, the deaf man under proper circ.u.mstances is now allowed to appear without hindrance before virtually any court.[90] As to special guardians, these will be accorded the deaf when there appears sufficient need, though there is less of this than formerly.[91] With respect to the testamentary capacity of the deaf, we find that in times past the deaf were often said to be more or less incapable of making wills, though this presumption could always be overcome. Naturally their wills were subjected to considerable scrutiny for the purpose of preventing fraud; but if written and apparently genuine, they could usually stand. To-day the deaf are practically everywhere held to be quite capable in this respect, and probably nowhere would a will be set aside for reason of the deafness of the testator alone. Likewise the deaf are now generally held capable of entering into all contractual relations.[92]
PRESENT TREND OF THE LAW IN RESPECT TO THE DEAF
In most of the statutes and decisions to which we have referred there appears a distinct trend towards treating the deaf quite as normal persons, and the tendency may be considered to be general to-day to hold them very much as other citizens. The greater part of all the special legislation has ceased of late years, and it is seldom now that a particular enactment is placed upon the statute books. Where such does occur, it arises chiefly where some peculiar protection of the deaf has been felt to be needed. Discriminatory legislation has practically disappeared, as has also beneficial legislation of the old sort, the only kind likely to be enacted in the future being along the new lines pointed out.
In judicial proceedings likewise particular usage in respect to the deaf has almost entirely pa.s.sed away, and the deaf to-day receive little distinctive treatment. Practically the sole special consideration now accorded them is in the procurement of interpreters for proper occasions. On the whole, then, the present att.i.tude of the law may be said to be to regard the deaf more and more fully as citizens, to allow them all the rights and duties of such, and to consider them in little need of particular aid or attention.[93]
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 att.i.tude 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] Const.i.tution, 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 a.s.sembly 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 pa.s.sengers were deaf, blind or insane.
Laws, ch. 350. See also Laws, 1851, ch. 523; 1881, ch. 427. See Public Statutes of Ma.s.sachusetts, 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 inst.i.tution for the deaf, the blind and other cla.s.ses 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.