, 1877-09-15
The Law of Distribution.


community property, as it now stands upon
our statutes, is at this time severely cr,t,-
eised with a view to effect renewed legisla-
tioa thereon. The present law provides that
al property acquired after marriage by either
husband or wife-except such as may be ac-
quired by gift. bequest, devise, or descent
shall be common property, and shall 60, al
ter the death of husband or wife, to the sur
vivor. Now there are families in this terri
tory, as elsewhere who have had children
by former marriages, and although such cases
are rare, we find in some families from two
to three sets of children OF course, to ap-
ply the above law tosuch families would seem
to work great hardship, as the Law does
not provide share of the community pro-
perty for the children by former marriages
But ell such laws-laws of distribution IN
partieular-are intended to benefit themany
and not exceptional cases.
The change proposed is to give one-half of
the community property to the survivor, and
the other half to his OF her heirs. While the
present law would seem unjust to the chill
dren of different parents, the proposed alter
alton of the law would be infinitely worse.
For example: Husband and wife stayt in
life without means after number of years
of hard toll, they have accumulated little
fortune, of say $1,000, invested in farm, i'm
plements, stock, ETC., or IN workshop, or
store Now, while they live happy, they
are not blessed with children, and finally
the wife dies Her heirs-father, mother,
brothers and sisters, ete.-under such law
claim one-half of the community property,
and of course are entitled to it, leaving the
husband crippled in circumstances and COM
pelling him to sell out or borrow money to
buy the interest of his wife's heirs in the
property which was acquired by their joint
labor
We illustrate another feature of the pro-
posed amendment in the case of children !:
One-half to the wife, and the other half to the
children. Now we suppose the wife, after
the death Of her husband, marries again
as they usually do-and her second husband
is unwilling to board, clothe and educate
his wife's children by former husband.
What then. Well, he charges the expenses
of their support and education to their es-
tate, and eventually makes their property
his own, without any one being able to sue
cessfully prevent him.
The law of California, in this respect, gives
the heirs of the wife one-half of the cOmmu-
nifty property, leaving the husband the other
half to pay the community debts. Our pres
ent law of distribution is, in every way,
preferable to that We ask: Who is best
entitled to the remainder? Is it not the
party who helped to accumulate the property!
Or is it wiser to give it to somebody who
turns up to be relative, and takes one-half
of the properly, to the great injury of the
survivor, who for many years worked hard
to acquire it? Ii We must have community
property, the present law benefits the parties
nearest concerned, and to do the fair part by
the children of former marriages, let hus-
band and wife have a fair understanding
that all their children-irrespective of parent
age-shall share equally and to prevent a
wrong being done them, let wills be execu-
ted, and be sure not to revoke them.