Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1910-02-15
THE TILLMAN CHILDREN.

There is widespread interest among
the people Of this county over the con-
troversy as to the possession Of the
lIchildren of Mr. and Mrs. B. r. Tillman,
Jr., and public interest seems to in
crease rather than diminish, with the
delay Of the supreme court in render
ing its decision.
The most commonly expressed opin-
ion Of those who are more or less IA
miliar with the testimony, is that the
mother should have the children, and
there is no little Indignation over the
law under which the father is supposed
to nave the right to deed the little girls
to their grandfather.
The reporter heard very illu,uina-
ting discussion Of the question a few
days ago, between layman and a very
able lawyer, and the reproduction Of
the points brought out will probably
throw some light on the whole ques-
ton, that does not generally exist.
1T seems to me-" said the layman,
that although this statute under
which that deed was made is an out
rageous travesty on modern civiliza-
tion, that nevertheless, 1t is law and the
supreme court will have to uphold 1t,
and let the children remain where they
are now."
You have an incorrect understanding
of the matter" replied the lawyer. Il
agree with you fully that the mother
should have tine children in this case;
but at the same time I consider the
statute a good one. AS a matter Of
fact, it is nothing more nor less than
statutory enactment of the common
law, and 1t does not change a condition
that has existed for so long that its
original usage Is lost In obscurity.
"As between the father and mother,
it is proper for the father to have
prior authority over the children; but
that has never meant that the mother
was not to be considered, even as much
as the father Is to be considered. It
merely means that in a case where the
mother should be notoriously unfit to
rear her children, a thing Of rare oc-
currence, the father can take such ac-
tion as will be for the best interest Of
the children.
I'm approaching this question, the
average layman, whether man or wo-
man, is naturally inclined to take sides
as between father and mother, and the
position is generally more or less par
tisan. That, however, Is not the atti-
tude Of the law. The law puts the well
fare of the children above the rights
or desires of either father or mother.
It tries to inquire mainly what is best
for the children, and that Is the ques-
ton now before the supreme court.
We'll, but does the court not have
to be governed by the terms Of this
statute" asked the layman, "and II
these Tillman children were properly
decided under the terms Of that stat
ute, does the court not have to guar
antee the integrity of the fathers con-
tract?"
mot in the least" replied the law
yer. THAT Is where you have fallen in
to another common fallacy, that comes
about through lack Of knowledge Of
the law. This case comes under what
is known as the chancery division OF
the court, and the court is considering
It In its original Jurisdiction as a court
Of cnancery. That is my judgment,
and / think that when the decision
comes out you will find that / am cor
rect. The supreme court judges are
Just going over all that tremendous
mass Of testimony that was submitted
in the form of affidavits, and is consid-
ering the evidence just as a petit jury
would. What the final judgment will
be, do not know; but the court Is not
compelled to confirm the fathers deed, |
and can. If 1t sees proper to do so, give
the custody Of these children to the
mother" ]