23 App. D.C. 31

Rule v. Geddes

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided January 5, 1904

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · decided 1904-01-05

Hearing on an appeal by the respondent, the superintendent of the Reform School for Girls of the District of Columbia, from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, discharging the petitioner from the custody of the respondent. The Court in the opinion stated the case as follows: The appellant, Amy J. Rule, as superintendent of the Reform School for Girls of the District of Columbia, appeals from a judgment of the supreme court of the District discharging the appellee from her custody. The petition for the writ of habeas corpus was filed April 13, 1903, by Helen Geddes through Charles S. Peters as next friend, and alleged that petitioner was a citizen of the United States, resident in said District, and seventeen years of age; that on October 11, 1901, she was, without authority of law, incarcerated in the girls’ reform school; that no trial was given her, and no proper proceeding had in any competent tribunal to deprive her of her liberty and confine her in said school and house of correction; that she is restrained of her liberty without authority of law and in violation of her constitutional rights, notwithstanding that she and her father have demanded her release. The petition was sworn to by the next friend, who- also states that he is the son-in-law of petitioner’s father, and is about to remove to his house, and that petitioner desires to make her home with them, with the consent of her said father and affiant. The respondent made return to the writ admitting the custody of petitioner, and alleging that the same was under regular commitment under the law. The following proceedings appear in the exhibits made a part of said return: EXHIBIT “A.” Keform School for Girls of the District of Columbia. Charles W. Geddes, of the city of Washington, District of Columbia, states that he is the father of Helen Geddes, a minor of the age of fifteen years, born in Washington' April 19, 1886; that the said Helen Geddes is incorrigible, wholly beyond his control and management, and is a proper subject for the Keform School for Girls of the District of Columbia; and that it is his request and desire that the said Helen Geddes may be received into the said school according to the laws establishing and governing the same; that his wife, the mother of the said Helen Geddes, is no longer living. C. W. Geddes. Witness: W. W. Smith, 1317 E. Subscribed and sworn to before me on the ninth day of October, a. d. 1901. Witness my hand and the seal of the institution. Henry M. Hoyt, President of the Board of Trustees of the Keform School for Girls of the District of Columbia. EXHIBIT “B ” October 11, 1901. In relation to the application-of Charles W. Geddes for the admission of his daughter Helen to the Girls’ Keform School he makes the following additional statements under oath: That his daughter’s- deterioration is due to the influence of bad company; that she has become entirely incorrigible and that he is unable to control her; that she will not go to school, and although all possible efforts have been made by him and other members of his family, she continues to consort with immoral companions, male and female, and has begun to take to drink. That while she is not violent in her temper, she disregards and disobeys his parental orders and neglects and refuses to perform her household duties. EXHIBIT “0.” Extract from the president’s record of commitments, Beform School for Girls, D. C., page 5 : “October 9, 1901. “Charles W. Geddes, being duly sworn, makes application for the admission of his daughter Helen to the Girls’ Beform School. He states that he is a clerk in the Adjutant General’s Office in the War Department and lives at 310 E. Capitol street N. E.; that his said daughter, who is fifteen years old, has become entirely incorrigible and that he is unable to control her. Other statements made by him under oath are shown upon a memorandum signed by himself and on file with the papers. “Henry M. Hoyt, President.” “October 11, 1901. “Upon the aforesaid application, and upon sworn statements made to me and affidavits on file of Wm. W. Smith, and Officer O. T. Davis of the police force of the District, I have this day issued an order of committal of said Helen Geddes to the school. “Henry M. Hoyt, President.” EXHIBIT “D.” District or Columbia, ) City of Washington, ) O. T. Davis, a patrolman in the 9th precinct of the Washington police, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on or about September 1, 1901, when on his beat in the northeast part of the city, he met two young ladies somewhat intoxicated, and on his speaking to them they informed him that they were going to Chinatown with two young men, whereupon he said that they could not do that, and ho would take them home. Accordingly he did so, and while at first thej protested, they finally permitted him to take them home without resistance. Deponent further says that in the course of conversation he learned that the girls were sisters and that the younger one.was Helen Geddes, who volunteered the statements that since her mother’s death she had gotten into bad company and had gone to places where she drank, and that she knew this was wrong, and that she had done wrong in other ways. On arriving at their home, 310 East Capitol street N. E., their father was sitting in the yard, and thanked deponent for bringing his daughters home. Further deponent says not. O. T. Davis, M. P. Sworn and subscribed to before me this 11th day of October, 1901. Henry M. Hoyt, President Reform School for Girls, D. O. EXHIBIT “E.” District of Columbia, ) City of Washington. ) ss: William W. Smith, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a correspondent of the Baltimore Sun, living in Washington ; that he knows Charles W. Geddes and his daughter Helen; that wliile, in his opinion, the said Geddes has failed to guard and train his said daughter properly, and has himself subjected her to evil associations, the present situation and danger of the girl from moral deterioration is such that in order to- save her she should be subjected to the restraint and discipline which the Reform School for Girls offers. And deponent further says that in his judgment, notwithstanding the father’s failure to perform his duty, his application for the admission of his said daughter to the Reform School may properly be acted on and an order of commitment be issued. Wm. W. Smith. Witness: Isabelle G. Smith. Sworn and subscribed before me this 11th day of October, 1901. Henry M. Hoyt, President Reform School for Girls, D. C. EXHIBIT “E.” Reform School for Girls of the District of Columbia. Washington, October 11, 1901. To Miss A. J. Rule, Superintendent of the Reform School for Girls, D. C.: You are hereby directed to take into the Reform School for Girls of the District of Columbia, under the eighth section of “An Act Revising and Amending the Various Acts Establishing and Relating to the Reform School in the District of Columbia,” approved May 3, 1816 (U. S. 1 Rev. Stat. Supp. 103, chap. 90), which act is also applicable to the Reform School for Girls of the District of Columbia (U. S. 1 Rev. Stat. Súpp. 596, chap. 595), Helen Geddes, residing at 310 E. Capitol St. N. E., an incorrigible girl, and to detain her an inmate of said school according to the laws of the United States governing the same. Henr? M. Hott, President of the Board of Trustees of the Reform School for Girls of the District of Columbia. Sections 8 and 9 of the act of Eebruary 25, 1901 (31 Stat. at L. 809, ehap. 118), under which the foregoing proceedings were had, read as follows: “Section 8. That whenever any girl under the age of seventeen years shall be brought before any court of the District of Columbia, or any jndge of such court, and shall be convicted of any crime or misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment other than imprisonment for life, such court or judge in lieu of sentencing her to imprisonment in the county jail or fining her, may commit her to the Reform School for Girls to remain until she shall arrive at the age of twenty-one years, unless sooner discharged by the board of trustees. And the judges of the criminal and police courts of the District of Columbia shall have power to commit to the Reform School for Girls, first, any girl under seventeen years of age who may be liable to punishment by imprisonment under any existing law of the District of Columbia, or any law that may be enacted and in force in said District; second, any girl under seventeen years of age, with the consent of her parent or guardian, against whom any charge of crime or misdemeanor shall have been made, upon proper cause shown to the satisfaction of the court; third, any girl under seventeen years of age, who is destitute of a suitable home and an adequate means of obtaining an honest living, or who is in danger of being brought up, or is brought up, to lead an idle or vicious life; fourth, any girl under seventeen years, who is incorrigible or habitually disregards the commands of her father and mother or guardian, who leads a vagrant life, or resorts to immoral places or practices, or neglects or refuses to perform labor suitable to her years and condition or to attend school. And the president of the board of trustees may also commit to the Reform School for Girls such girls as are mentioned in the foregoing third and fourth classes upon application or complaint, in writing, of a parent or guardian, or relative having charge of such girl, and upon such testimony in regard to the facts stated as shall be satisfactory to him, and for taking testimony in such cases he is hereby empowered to administer oaths. “Section 9. That every girl sent to the Reform School for Girls shall remain until she is twenty-one years of age, unless sooner discharged or bound as an. apprentice.” Petitioner demurred to the return as showing a commitment without due process of law. This was sustained, and judgment entered discharging the petitioner, from which this appeal has been prosecuted.

Relies on Farnham v. Pierce · In re Ferrier · County of McLean v. Humphreys

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1904-01-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1959

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Shepard

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2We are of the opinion that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer and discharging the petitioner.

¶31. Apparently the error was committed under the apprehension that the proceeding culminating in the commitment of the petitioner to the Reform School for Girls was in the nature of a prosecution, conviction, and punishment for crime. Unquestion,-ably, if such were the case, the infant petitioner would be entitled to the protection of all the safeguards of the Constitution to the same extent as an adult. But the Reform School for Girls is not a prison or penitentiary. It is what it purports to be — a school wherein girls of tender years, who may be exposed by conditions of misfortune, or who may perversely expose themselves to immoral surroundings and influences, may be kept under reasonable restraint during their minority, not as a punishment for crime, "but for their moral and physical well being. It is a beneficent public charity made necessary by the conditions of modern life, •especially where population is crowded in narrow limits.

¶4It is true that by certain provisions of the act under consideration, girls under the age of seventeen years may be committed to the same institution, instead of the workhouse or penitentiary, when convicted of ofienses of certain grades. But this fact does not convert the place into one of punishment. It remains a school of reform for girls to which the law, pervaded by a spirit of humanity, also permits certain youthful criminals to be committed for reformation instead of the punishment that might be inflicted, when, in the discretion of the presiding judge, they may appear to be capable of reformation, and of being *49taught to lead lives of decency and usefulness. Milwaukee Industrial School v. Milwaukee County, 40 Wis. 328, 337, 22 Am. Rep. 702; Prescott v. State, 19 Ohio St. 184, 188, 2, Am. Rep. 388; Farnham v. Pierce, 141 Mass. 203, 204, 55 Am. Rep. 452, 6 N. E. 830.

¶5Moreover, it is to be presumed, although the institution occupies one location and is under one management, that care is exercised in its administration in respect of classification and association of the inmates, so as best to subserve the beneficent purpose of its foundation.

¶6Matter of administration, however, cuts no figure in the case as presented, which alone concerns the general character and purpose of the institution as disclosed in the act of Congress under which it is operated.

¶72. That the conduct of the petitioner just prior to her commitment brought her within the conditions of the fourth class as prescribed in the section of the statute before quoted is quite clear from the sworn statements of her father and others, upon which the president of the board acted, as shown in the return.

¶8Acting, then, within the letter of the law, was it competent for him to commit the petitioner to the reform school during the remainder of her minority, without notice and opportunity given her for a judicial hearing ? We are of the opinion that it was.

¶9The petitioner was a minor between fifteen and seventeen years of age. Her father, as her natural guardian, had the legal right to regulate her conduct, to restrain her liberty within all reasonable bounds, and to direct her training and education. She was not entitled to general freedom of action, but was under his tutelage. He had the legal right to confine her within certain limits, to select her associates, and to commit her to the restraint of an institution for training and education during her minority, without her consent. Her reasonable detention during such period for purposes of education would not be imprisonment, but the lawful restraint implied in the exercise of recognized parental authority. This right of the parent is subordinate to the power of the State, and when exercised unreasonably and cruelly, or when not exercised at all, so that the child may be *50subjected to degrading and immoral influences, may be taken away and transferred to other guardian agencies provided by the State. In this case it appears that the parent was unable to restrain petitioner within proper bounds, and he availed himself of a law enacted to meet such an exigency, by providing a way for the transfer of his right of control to the State. Unable to assert his own legal power of restraint, and apprehensive of the ruin to which his child seemed drifting, he appealed to the State to assume the functions of guardianship and take her into its protection during her years of nonage.

¶10The proceedings had upon this application were but the methods prescribed by law for the permitted transfer of guardianship of the person and for the protection of the State from imposition. The so-called commitment was but the legal warrant for the admission of the petitioner into the institution, and no more an order for imprisonment than are letters of guardianship issued by a probate court, or a decree transferring the possession of an infant made by a tribunal having jurisdiction of its custody in a particular case. The child herself, having no right to control her own action or to select her own course of life, had no legal right to be heard in these proceedings. Hence, the law which does not require her to be brought in person before the committing officer or extend her the privilege of a hearing on her own behalf cannot be said to deprive her of the benefit of due process of law. The rationale of our conclusion is supported by the following cases, which disclose points of analogy: Ex parte Crouse, 4 Whart. 9, 11; Roth, v. House of Refuge, 31 Md. 329, 334; Re Ferrier, 103 Ill. 367, 42 Am. Rep. 10 ; McLean County v. Humphreys, 104 Ill. 378; Prescott v. State, 19 Ohio St. 184, 188, 2 Am. Rep. 388; Ex parte Ah Peen, 51 Cal. 280 ; Reynolds v. Howe, 51 Conn. 472, 477; Whalen v. Olmstead, 61 Conn. 263, 15 L. R. A. 593, 23 Atl. 964; Dumain v. Gwynne, 10 Allen, 270, 275.

¶113. The fact that the father has undertaken indirectly to revoke the transfer of his right of guardianship, as shown by his written request for petitioner’s release as alleged in her petition, cannot affect the disposition of the case. Whilst many respect*51able authorities hold that such a disposition freely made is irrevocable, we are not called upon to determine the question at this time, because the father is not a party to the record.

¶124. Nor is it necessary to determine the question whether, under other provisions of the general statutes relating to infants, the right of restraint in this case will terminate upon petitioner’s attainment of the age of eighteen years instead of that of twenty-one years, as provided in the act under consideration, for the reason that she has not yet attained to that age.

¶13If she shall be denied the right to depart from the school when that period shall have been attained there will he nothing to prevent her raising the question in another proceeding to that end.

¶14Nor the reasons given the judgment will be reversed with costs and the cause remanded with direction to overrule the demurrer to the return, dismiss the petition, and return the custody of the petitioner to the Superintendent of the Reform School for Girls. It is so ordered. Reversed.