The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-02-16
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.
Women and the Family Purse.


To the Editor of the indianapolis Journal:
Every public occurrence brings with its con-
tinuously suggestive association of ideas, pecul-
lar phases of speculation, That charity which
eovereth a multitude of sins and vaunteth not
itself. and which has been so spontaneously re
sponsive to the necessities of the flood sufferers
has known no sex except in the matter of the
limited power of appropriations. Boards of
trade and other secret fraternities have given
generously of the stores of their treasures and
although Mrs. Livermore said she found perfect
network of women's clubs in the West, if any
such societies have appropriated any money the
knowledge thereof has not yet reached the pub
ic On the contrary, 1 happened to be present
when a couple of ladies reported half days col
ection to the chairman of a soliciting
committee, and the sum total So
we're everywhere met by the ladies from whom
they solicited with the response that they had no
money, and didn't know how much to subscribe.
1t might be suggested in extenuation of this cir
:umstance that the husbands probably made do
nations There is a counter probability entitled
% equal consideration. that some of the husbands
didn't give cent. But neither argument is per-
inent to the issue. The point is involved in the
question. what right has the husband to regulate
the wife's desire to bestow charity} If her judg-
ment is of sufficient quality to entitle her to be-
come the companion of her husband, it is of
equal suficiency IN all matters pertaining to his
material interests. All his worldly goods with
which she is endowed are hers-according to the
marriage promise-and his in point of fact.
The writer once heard of a suit for divorce in
which the chief allegation against the wife was
that she had stolen some muslin and calico from
the husband for clothing for her step-daughters
and herself. The level-headed judge could
scarcely wait for this atrocious statement to be
finished before he hurled frebrand at the
short sighted but eminent counsel of the wife's
sworn protector by remarking that it was an
impossibility for a wife to commit the crime of
theft against her husband.
Many wives bring money and estates to their
husbands who assume exclusive control of such
property, dealing out occasional pittances to
their 'consortsf in a most magnanimous man
ner. Such wives are fortunate, in illustration of
which there comes to mind a case wherein wife
brought nearly ten thousand dollars to
a monster-I mean a man-who, when
she stricken unto death, counter
manded her order for trinket worth
s. on the plea that she couldn't live long, and
the expenditure would be useless Fate, how
ever, was propitious, and the order was filed be-
lore its recall could be made effective and the
sick woman had few more begrudged moments
of pleasure added to the waning light of her life.
Recurring to the restriction of the charitable
impulses of the women toward the focd-suffer
ers and in strict justice to the frequently orna-
mental and sometimes useful sex, pertinent
counter-speculation concerning the stupidity of
women obtrudes itself and clamors for recogni
ton, and which must find expression despite
the weight of heresy and schism with
which it is surcharged toward both sexes,
and that is the reasonable suggestion
that in the matter of making contributions the
same instinct which prompts women to barter
their husbands best and only extra suit of
clothes to the plaster-of paris image-vender in
exchange for praying Samuel caricature
of the Virgin Mary, never entered their practical
minds in connection with the subject of charity
although the call for clothing is inevitable. And
thus the golden opportunities to kill two birds
with stone by displaying active charity
and of getting even with the restrictions the
family purse are forever lost. NJ. L. A.
CoNNERsvILLE, FEB IA, 1884.