The new Northwest. [volume] (Portland, Or.) 1871-1887, 1879-10-02
COMMUNITY PROPERTY

COMMUNITY PROPERTY.
The Walla Walla Statesman strongly
objects to the law in force in Washing
ton Territory in regard TO community
property. Under the present law, in
case Of the death Of either the husband
or the wife, the whole Of the community
property goes to the survivor. What
could be fairer? The gentlemen who
passed this law did so to prevent the
"eating up" Of estates by legal pro-
cesses in case Of the death Of the hus-
baud. They were wise enough to know
that mothers will not rob and desert
their children, but will support and de-
fend them to the last extremity with
out being looked after by County Courts
and having masculine administrators
and executors to supervise their busl-
ness transactions. This Illustration is
given by the Statesman to prove that
the law is ''monstrous":
a man and a woman, both with children by
a former marriage, marry. At the time OF their
last marriage neither Of them had any prop
erty ia their own right, but during their mar
riage acquire property valued al SD 900. more
or less, mainly earned with the assistance or
the minor sons OF the husband by a former
marriage. All such property is denomiuated
by our laws common property. and goes, on
the death OF the husband, 90 his wife abso-
luiely, and, of course, 70 the exclusion Of an
OF his children.
This is one OF The comments Of the
journal mentioned:
While the vie should be literally provided
for, 10 is preposierous 10 give it all 20 her 20
the exclusion OF the children who have more
than equal rights with her.
The illustration sounds plausible. or
course, il is TO the credit Of men that
when their first wives die, all Of their
children are sons; aud it is to the det-
riment Of women that when their hus-
bands die, their children show the bad
taste to be girls.
Suppose the wife should have the
minor sons by first husband, aud that
they should be mainly instrumental in
earning the property acquired after the
second marriage. In this case, If the
mother should die, would the Statesman
claim that it was "preposterous" for the
husband TO have control of the estate ?
We don't think the Statesman would.
Neither would it be forward in claiming
that the "minor sons" OF the wife had
'more than equal rights" with the hus-
band. 1t appears to us that if the moth
er's sons had been diligent aud dutiful,
the stepfather would deal fairly by
them and, il the fathers sons had been
the faithful children they should have
been, the steptnother would not be unjust
to them. But, If the Statesman does
not believe step-children will be fairly
dealt with, it should advocate the pas
sage Of laws for their special protection,
aud not make all women subjects OF
class legislation.
The exact trouble with our contempo-
rary is this-it fails to see that the
mother who fulfils her duties equally
as well as her husband, is entitled to
equal consideration with him. 1t de-
sires 10 have "re-enacted the old law
which gives dover in real estate and a
portion Of personal property to the
wife, bat evidently does not want hus-
bands smenable to similar law. An
other objection is found in the fact that
'the community property law is an
outgrOwth Of the woman's right agita-
tion." The advocates Of woman's equal
ity in the Northwest will be moved 10
still greater exertions by the acknowl-
ment that their labors are being crowned
with success; our brother should not
have made this admission. We regret,
for the reason that the proprietor Of the
Statesman is a woman, that the journal
is trying TO deprive women Of the few
rights possessed by them, instead OF
battling for their equality.
Now, as regards the substitution of
the California law. As the advocates
OF woman's rights only ask equal rights,
the women OF Washington Territory
will doubtless cheerfully abide the pas
sage Of law by which, on the dissolu-
ton Of the community by the death Of
either the husband or the wife, one-half
Of the community property shall go to
the survivor and the other half shall be
subject to the decedent's testamentary
disposition; but the women should and
will demand that, II s law, based on the
California community property ststute,
be passed, it shall be made to apply to
the husband and the wife alike, and not
be entirely in the interest Of the hus-
band.
We hope the friends Of the present
law will see to it that no one-sided leg
islation Of the character evidently de-
sired by the Statesman is rushed through
the Terrifnrial Lepislatnre.