The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-11-20
PROTECTION FOR THE INNOCENTS.
COnstitu;ionslity of the statute Creating the
Board Of Children's Guardians.

The opinion of the Suprs/e Court of In
diana, prepared and read by Judge Elliott
on behalf 0she court. last Tuesday, up
holding the constit utioDality of the law
creating the Board of Children's Guar
dians, is of much interest. because the
statute referred to has attracted the atten-
ton of sociologlsts. not only In the United
States. but also in Europe. Inquiries for
copies of the law have come from various
places in Europe and the United
States, and from the most eminent
students and professors In the do
main of social movements. In France
the question of dsposing of the children of
the streets and Sums " as taken up by the
Assembly several years ago. anc long re-
port and proposal for an act was made by
the late Senator Roassel, eminent in France
as student of social laws and develop
mente. Tie result was an enactment some
thing similar TO the statute in force now
In this State. but passed subsequently to
our statute. The School of Training for
Street Boys. near Paris, is fully described
In an illustrated magazine article, copied
In the November Review of Reviews
The circumstances in the case which
brought the coDstitutionallty of the lndI-
ana statute in issue before the Supreme
Court were these. A woman named Van
girls and boy. These children were
taken by the Board of Chiidren's Guar
dams on a petition charging that the wom-
an neglected her children. led life of low
and gross debauchery. and the associations
OF the children were such as tended to
their corruption and contamination. The
case was heard in the Circuit Court, and
the court awarded the custody of the chill
dren TO the board. Later the woman mar
RED a man nsmed Wilkins and brought
against her set aside on the
ground that the facts stated in
the original petition and found by the court
were not true, and that she was so dis
tracted IN mind. so craZSd with grief over
her children bang taken from her that she
was at the time incapable of comprehend
ing or doina anything. Judge Elliott says
In his opIrion:
Ii has been for many centuries theoretically
true that the STATE. through its appropriate or
gans, is the guardian of the children within its
borders. The constitution OF a state is always
presumed TO be framed by organized society
governed by settled principles. 1t Is therefore
proper to assume that our Constitution and our
laws enacted under IL sanction and confirm the
great principle OF the soyeregns guardianship
OF the children within the dOmini0ns of the
sovereign. But while il is true that this great
principle IL thus sanctioned and confirmed, II is
still true that the squally great principle that
natural right vests in parents the custody and
control OF their children u confirmed and en-
forced. This high and strong natural right
llelus only WDen the welfare OF society or or the
children themselves comes into conflict with
IL. but where there f. such conflict the supreme
right or guardianship asserts itself for the pro-
lection OF society and the promotion of the well
fare OF the wards or the Common
wealth. IL is unnecessary to define the
boundaries or prescribe the limits OF the power
or the state to take children from the custody OF
parents who viii lead them into evil paths or
surround them with vicious influences. and place
them In custody OF those who VIII train and edu-
cate them for good lives, and make them useful
members OF society. for our statute
IL lar within the limits or the
great power OF inherent state guardianship.
The statute which provides that children may he
taken from the custody OF parents whose course
or life or whose evil conduct units them 70 rear
children so that they will become good and use
ful citizens. was enacted pursuant 10 the great
constitutional rfOvisionA or which we have
spoken. and 1 not 70 be broken down by the
declaration o. a doctrine that will make the
duty OF those who are selected To take charge
or the children So vexarlous and difficult
that good men aud women will be deferred from
accepting the Office, which, at best. Is an I'M
pleasant one. The statute violates no constitu-
tinnai principle. inasmueh as II guards the inter-
ests and rights OF the parents by requiring that
tbelr childrcn shall not lie taken from toen with
OUT hearing. upon due notice, IN the cOucts OF
the state As a cheek 10 an abuse OF power and
the exercise oferbitrary authority by the courts
OF original Jurisdiction, II provides for the right
OF appeal To the highest court OF
the state. Here. then, We have case
where the Proceedings are founded upon
statue enacted for the DurDose OF promoting