, 1879-06-14
PROPERTY RIGHTS
AND WoMAN's wnoNrs.
N. AZ xs,Vts-z - erkA sts~fAstnA :.

tn tht fshuof D} Ih1 JFtoHhs- q
MUSHROOM, Mich, juno 10.--1 w1sh crcry ono,
from Mains to California, could read 1lcnry's
letter. Though the law has bcen changed in
many respects for tho better, yet It Is clearly
evident that there Is still room for Improve
mcnt.
tave Just been reading All artlclo relating to
tho lats Judge packer's will In which the writer
thereof cxtulls tho Judge for having done 50
generous thing rs to grant to his wife her
choice ont Of his vast wealth, and asks what great
er compliment could be paid 4 woman. suppose
It was nul,te act, for It ia always noble to do
right, md this was surely nothing moro than
right. would ask, who las better right, next
to himself, 10 a tnan's prosorty than f,ia wife,
who has been hIA companion through adversely
an*1 prosperity. In s!ekness and health, who las
been true friend antt wlae counselor, md
who las g!yon him as 1t wera her vcsy lltel Yet
one wfnd suppose she had no right, and It IL 4
4 small portion of what thu Inns helped to earn
ansl Save. The writer continues In thia strain:
vi would bo rlskt thtnK In son,o cases thus
TO tempt d suEyiyot.n Ono wou!d infer from
ttis tl,at women were terribly dishonest crca-
ttres, and moreover great hpentlthrtfts. This
le aiding Insult TO injury. It would 10 laugh
ablo wcro II not 10 unjust, In The face Of tho
fact that mora men have sqnan1sred their
wives. property than wo,ncn lava their l1ua-
]
squaudered their own. In The face Of the in
justtco done her, the only wonder 10 that WOMAN
ls "a good Us ahe Is. What incentive has any
tnarTlcd woman 10 work md sage under tho
present tnwaf Is 1t any wonder II she pfefcss
10 ret all shc can, and spend alf st!d gets, aud
tuku life GasY as she ca.il IA bird In tni1u is
worth two. In tic bush y any time, and what
wonder II woman should prefer to spend her
bus bnsns nss = herself than ea7' 1t for s0m'
II a woman has a good husband, thcro is u
chance that she may reap IN this lMe the re-
ward Of neF toll md industry, but evcn then It
6a,u-as many women huvc-tslyd!ng Ills atfcc-
ton aud bis money with ono who las no right
to either. Dut though, this may not be the ease,
ts It encouraging to any. HoEnnh to know that
be. frugal aud saving, in order that sho may
MD hor husband u securn q competence
ssas s 'ns' e. sew S' 'Es fst .aeaia desse
atep In some daY md rcmoyo her hnsband With
out his havng provided for such al emergency,
-arl men aro strangctY. tmproyiocnt in this
rcspccb-thnt strangers almost, certainly those
who had no Just claim, might Como In for graat
share Ut those hardly-carncd lol3arsi Aud yet
this is ]aw. II tho husband dies tltestatc ind
leaves no children, his relatives must como In
for sharo u ltB property, oven bis uepcws or
ncces II there bo no uearer Of kin, can share In
Whit they hav0 mover helped to earn. Wfor1
tho husband was possessed of wealth before his
marriage tho case would bc different, mud got Il
In no morc right for the husband to claim prop
crtY belonging to the wife bcforu marriage
than it would be for ller to claim hts. But ho
ca,, hold her property, at least In somo sts,cs,
to The exclusion Of her children during lila ltfo.
time. What justice. is thcro in this, whcu, ut
tho death Of the husband and father, tho prop
orty must bo divided among the children, evon
II there Is not enough to support the mother Ia
her old ago1 II sho Is too fccblo to work sha
Ia lett at tho mercy Of her children, and, alas
children are not always very morclful. Why
should not the property DO given to tho wife
during her lifetime, o. u least until ahe married
acaIp, in case she dtd3 Has not she the best
right to III i.