St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-04-14
PROTECTION FOR GIRLS.
Lucy Stone Draws Picture for
the Legislature.

Lucy Stone Draws Il picture Ior
the Legislature.
That veteran suffragiSt, Lucy Stone"
has this to say on question that is OF
vital interest TO all women, and eSpe-
cially so to mothers of girls: A good
deal OF instruction may be derived from
the debates in the Massachusetts, legis-
lature during the past few days on the
bill to raise the age Of protection for
girls. During similar discussion in
the British parliament a few years ago,
Mrs. Millicent Garrett FaWcett noted
| the fact that the members seemed more
! anxious to protect men from being
blackmailed than to protect girls under
| age from being ruined. While 1t Is
right that all proper safeguards should
| be set Up against blackmail, there is al
ways danger, III legislature composed
/ exclusively of men, that these safe
guards will be pushed so far as to de-
| feat the purpose of the bill altogether
! This is not because members mean to
| be unjust, but because they look at the
question solely from their own side.
| In the present case the Massachusetts
VIC. T. u. petitioned TO have the age
raised from fourteen to eighteen. The
| Boston Daily Journal says:
Few people who any knowledge
of the immaturity of chlldren'S minds
will seriously argue that girl who has
! Just passed her fourteenth birthday is
! capable of choosing intelligently for
| herself in those matters which may
| blast her whole future life. Virtually,
| however, the present law exposes girls
| of that age to the wiles of experienced
roues. and leaves them without defense
| save such as may be afforded by their
! OWE narrow knowledge of the world.
] This is not an equal match. The judi
/ ciary cOmmittee, recognizing the justice
| of the plea of the petitioners to GER
| tain extent, made the age limit sixteen.
! With this the petitioners would have
| been satisfied if the character of the bill
| had not been changed i'll other import
| particulars.
But the bill is so worded as to throw
j upon the hapless child who has fallen
victim to the wileS of seducer, the
necessity of proving her own previous
! chaSte life before the penalty which the
law carries can be visited upon her be-
| trayer. 1t would be bad enough if the
! burden of proof rested on the other
side, for in that case the law would say,
| in effect, that if a girl under sixteen
| had once fallen, she should thenceforth
! be unprotected by the law, DC matter
| what the circumstances might be. But,
under the provisions of this bill, the
! betrayer would not be compelled to
hunt up or invent evidence successfully
to bIacken the character of his victim.
but the latter would have to furnish
affirmative evidence of her innOceney,
which would be difficult, if not i'm
possible. Such requirement is mon
StrouS, and bill containing it would
be more accurately described as a bill
for the protection of roues than of
young girls.
The final fate of the bill is still unde-
cided. The moral of the debate, how
ever. is clear. just as, in seeing, we
need two clear eyes to get a correct
perspective, so in legislation we need to
have both the masculine and the FEM
mime points of view represented, in
order to arrive at just result.
,TTCV STONE