The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1890-03-19
Docs Slavery Still Exist i'll ''"ash
Carolina?

The XIII Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States provides that:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary serritnde,
except as q punishment for crime whereof inc
party shall have been duly convicted, shaIl
exist within the United States, or any Place
subject to their jurisdiction.
Section s95 of the Revised Statutes OF the
State OF South Carolina provides, that:
"In case any poor children shall te chargea;
BILE 10 any county. 1t sha II and may DC laW.ui
for the Com missioners of such county to bind
any such child or children out to be an APP
prentice, until every male child shall arrive
to the age of twenty-one years, ana every le,
male until she shall arrive unto the age oi
eighteen years, or be married..
If Section S95 does not conflict with the NIL
Amendment to the Constitution OF the United
States. we are very much mistaken. II the
State Of South Carolina may condemn poor
children 10 slavery for term Of years for an
offence Of which they have not been convict
ed, may the State not with equal right con-
demn poor people generally to slavery-ihe
mere change of the word slavery 4" zap
prentice" does not alter the fact, that "aprren'
ticed" children are in bondage, or slavery.
AS far as we know we have no other law on
our Statute Book, which makes II penal Of
fence to be poor.
But, admit that the law is constitutional
Doesn't the idea Of condemnins helpless
and innocent child to slavery, for no Other
reason than the loss of its natural protector
outrage every sense Of justice and humanity:
1t Is either the duty Of the State to provide
for her helpless children, or it is not her duty
10 do So.
If 1t Is her duty to provide for helpless poor
children, then 1t Is a disgrace for the Com
monweallh to dodge her duty by consgnine
her victims to slavery. If these poor helpless
children were able to resent the iudigniiy, nc
such outrage would be attempted upon them
If the Courts could get the car of such peo
pie we are sure the Supreme Court would blot
out this darkest stain from the Statute Book
The idea Of an innocent child's misfortune
being the pretext for enslaving it, outrages
every sense of justice, and we believe the acl
violates the Constitution o: tic United States.
There are few able bodied boys who cannot
earn their board and clothes at ten years oi
age. Then would the State Of South Carolina
bind out an eght-year old boy for thirteen
years merely to avoid taking care Of the child
for year two?
But If the law authorizing the binding out
OF children TO slavery was humane and just
the term of years would make even dcccm,
law odious In the sight Of respectable people
Why not let the State deal justly with its
poor children, even rs 1t docs with those who
\have estates left them? The money of rich or
&han children has thousand safeguards
tfkrown around it. But poor children aic
crrAshed by the only power to which they may
look for protection.
AAevcry child that is twelve years old
shoula support himself, so no child should be
boundtout--if he is to be bound out at ali-bc"
yond that age.
Poor children should be farmcd out, some
what as the paupers are tarincd QUITO suita-
BILE persons who will take them for a reasona'
BILE compensation, and keep them until they
are twelve years old.
As q large number Of children in this state
are dependent spon their parents fora sup
port, II is mater OF vital Importance that
the poorer class oApeople shall insist upon an
alteration of that>uw which would inf'ict