The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-11-25

ion, however, we will state what we believe
the law, as 1t now Is, is right During the
continuance of the marriage relation, be-
tween parties who should be so united, it
makes no difference whether the father or
mother is entitled to guardianship. Such
relation of n parent to II child is merely
nominal, both parents occupying equal au-
thority, in fact, without any clashng the
only difference, if any, being that the
mother exercises the most influence and
control. The actual, legal guardianship
must, however, be placed somewhere
Only one is needed, and there is as much
reason for placing it in the father as in the
mother. If the mother has right to conf
plain now, the father would have the same
cause of complaint in the case Of change
In the event of n new marriage the gtiard-
ianship of the mother is dissolved, and we
think wisely. The mother then enter, up.
on new relations and wc believe tina, the
history of the world will show that in nine
cases out of ten mother who rcmnrIics and
under the same roof snot the wscst and best
person for II guardian, especially, where
the ward is possessed of property, or may.
ut some time. he entitled thereto. This is
not always the case, as we very well know,
but VIC think that the experience OF nearly
every individual will confirm the wisdom
of the provision that marriage shall worl;
dissolution Of guardianship.
To the second proposition, general
affirmative answer may he given, but not
without some limitations \ guardian. so
appointed, would be subject 10 the ap-
prOval OF the Probate court, and, if ap-
pointed, could he removed at any time upon
proper representations \ consideration
enters into the discussion of this question
which the extreme advocates of woman's
rights are apt to lose sight Of Every
mother, every married or unmarried wo-
man, is not competent to take charge of
and manage property In nincty-ninc cases
out of a hundred, it would be worse than
madness to leave II large or, even, q small
property III tut MINUS ol II lcmalc. III is
true that this ought not to be 50, but it is
true nevertheless 1t is not fault of the
law, but fault of education. Educate
| our daughters up to the point and the laws
will quickly conform themselves thereto.
Passing to the third proposition, our en-
quirer seems to be laborng under an entire
misrepresentation of the law. There is no
difference made in the disposition of the
personal property OF married woman in
the case of divorce, whether it is granted
for one cause or another. \ wife, if she so
desires, can always "during coveture' or
i'll case Of divorce, keep the control of her
own property in her own hands If. upon
marriage or afterwards. she give her pro-
perty up TO her husband, and he. as the
law has it, ''rcduces it to- possession" it
becomes, ipS0 .f1cto, his property and not
hers. In such cases, if the husband OBJ
tains divorce for any cause, he retains
possession of the property because it has
been passed over to him. The remedy was
in the wife's hands at the outset, by keep
| ing it under her own control. If we under
stand the law rightly, it rests entirely with
the wife whether she shall keep her own
| property to herself, under her own control,
and for her own USE if we are correct. if II
woman, in the case Of divorce, finds her
self Invested of her property she has only
herself to blame. Moreover, an instance
never was known of court, in decree of
| divorce, giving husband an allowance
out of the wife's estate, while it is an
every days occurrence for the wife to be
granted alimony from the husbands estate.
We have, already, sufficiently answered
the fourth question, and will, therefore,
only say that some, but not all, 1.-THE rights
of woman depend upon the conditions
named.