The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1917-02-02
SENATE DISCUSSES
WOMAN SUFFRAGE
Several Arguments for and Against
Proposition but No Conclusions
Reached.

, cUSSing woman suffrage but no con-
clusion was reached 1t was not eX-
pected that there would be as much
: discussion as developed; several set
arguments were made, both for and
against the proposition. When the
senate adjourned several Of the sena-
tors indicated desire to discuss the
matter.
There was an unexpected furry o.
er Dill proposed by Senator Nickles,
Of Abbeville, which proposed placing
patients in hospitals on parity with
guests of a hotel or a boarding house.
There is now law that protects ho-
I tells against what are known as
beats Senator Nickles wanted to-
enlarge the scope of the hotel law 50
as to include hospitals, and proposed
that the law should provide that
where a person accepts accommoda-
tions at hospital with intent to de-
leave the hospital, that he would be
guilty of misdemeanor
Wide kange.
The discussion had a very wide
. range and was opposed largely On
the grounds that it might be constru
ed into an effort to collect debt. Sen
ator Laney led the opposition to the
bill, and was supported by Senator
. Banks, Senator .Brice and Senator
Nicholson. The advocates of the
measure were Senators Nickles, Bon
ham, Wharton, Ridgell, Shelor and
Dr.. Black. 1t seemed to be generally
agreed that there was merit in the
bill, but that nothing had better be
done until compromise was affected
by amendments that would make the
bill satisfactory The growth of hos
pitals, particularly those of a public
character,f was developed during the
/ discussion.
Z, Senator Rogers, Of Spartanburg,
wanted to include drug stores and 9TH
ers in the provisions of the bill.
The matter will be considered fur
ther tomorrow
i'':,. Up in Full Force.
Woman suffrage came up today
with full force Senator Williams, of
Aiken, oposped the proposed referen-
dunn, for woman suffrage. He saw
no need for the hurry, nor did he see
any possible good in suffrage for
women. He feared it would do more
harm than good. He wanted the bill
considered next year. This was not
for delay but to let the people con-
| slider and think. Personally he ex-
! pected to oppose the extension Of the
: ballot at every stage. He saw no de-
mand from the women. It would do
good to let public sentiment crysta-
lize and if, next year there 3e a de-
mand it will be amp. me for the
: referendum. The majority OF the
women. as he saw it, was not asking
for this privilege. This new-fangled
| idea was never advocated, he urged
! by 'Hade Hampton, or other leaders
Of this State.
! He was not filisbustering but wanted
to give the people time to think This
State has been generous in it's consid-
GRAFTON and laws towards women, no
one could say to the contrary. He
would like to please the few women
who want the suffrage but the thou
sands were not asking for the vote
Suffrage would mean the rewriting OF
the entire laws of the State-juries
and everything else. He had no de-
mand for this bill. Suffrage and di-
vorce went together why not link
them together as is done in Utah
! Colorado and the other suffrage
States? He has always regarded wo-
man above man and wanted her kept
there. He was opposed to women 60
| ing on the juries and the evils that
: would fallow in the wake Of suffrage
! Biblical Argument.
Senator Williams went into an ex-
tended Biblical argument, which he
/ Interpreted into opposition to suf
frage.' He and Senator Gross had
some pleasantries as to the meaning
! of helpmeet and husband Personal
| ly he recognized the rights of the
woman.
; Senator Sherard, the author of the
! referendum resolution, urged that the
same argument would be made year
hence. He did not care to enter into
| the merits of the question. All he
and the women were asking was an
expression of the people On the mer-
its. Personally he favored the right
being extended to women, but it was
only fair that the issue be left to the
voters themselves. He had faith in
! the Democratic convention that ad-
vised the referendum. He did not
know how the people would vote III
the referendum. but he insisted that
the people should be trusted. He re-
garded divorce as an evil and would
/ not favor submitting a question OF
evil 10 the people. He saw no good III
! delay. especially when it would set
tie the question as to the election
and people would be Informed on tie
j pending election He had no purpose
to force vote but there had already
/