Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-05-28
EIrcrRIlrTY or WOMEN A. GRAND
yCRoKs.


made:
lzt. Taat piue of the grand jurors
were unnamed in the veniFe; aud "a,
that several of the grand Jurors We're
married women living with their bus
bands.
Grand Jurors in this Territory are
procured by a procedure prescribed IN
chaptsr CHI Of TIE Code. The County
Commissioners certify to the clerk OF
court n list Of names, (s3JsO.) The
iudge SLOTS and determines how many
grand jurors shall BE summoned from
each county to attend each term OF court,
fsaSl.) Then, conformabiy 10 tue last
allotment end determination OF the
Judge, the clerk issues a yrnire, wherein
ne names as far as possible the perssns
10 be served Herewith, taking she names
from the list last furnished by the Com
missioners, In the order IN which the
nam.s occur on the list, but emitting the
| name Of any person who has served
| within two years, ts5s2.l In getting
the grand jury who found this Indicf
ment the procedure prescribed appears
TO have been strictly observed. Upon
the last list furnished there remain I'd
bat seven names. The judges allot-
ment called for sixteen persons, Con
| sequently the veuire had 10 run for SIX
teen, whereof nine were unnamed
pass TO the other point. None but
householders can lie grand Jurors under
our statute, (s207S.) Ii is coutended
that married women living with their
husbands are not househol Jers. Inat
they were not at common law, and we're
not in this Territory prior to the passage
of Chapter CLXXXiII of our Code, l.
doubtless true. But have not the proVl-
sions Of that chapter wrought change
in the lawl 10 answer this question,
We need primarily a definition OF the
word householder" A house holder II
one who manages and controls house
hold, not AZ agent, bat As principal
Such manager and controller might al
common law be either a woman or man
But at common law a wife living with
her husband was deemed always his
agent in household affairs, aud hence
could not possibly DO househOldsr
She was under civil disability, which
prevented her from acting or beins
recognized as partner or principal Will
him IN such affairs, and which pre-
vented her from being regarded as act
ing otherwise than as under duress II
his presence. Generally speaking, al
her real property Was under his man
agement; all her personal property anG
rights were his and not hers; and he
very body Was subject to Restraint ant
ohastiseInent by hilD. All this has be, l
wisely changed by our legislature. ant
marriage left a matter less OF Ia uscl'
and more of love.
In order to show the bearing of thi
change upon the question whsther u
not a married woman dwelling with he
husband can DO a householder, lL - NO
necessary to discuss or mention all tn
pertinent sections of orapter CLAAAlli
IL is sufficient To refer to a few sallen
provisions, although wsil-EiRh or quii'
every section of the chapter l NIGH
almost say every sentence in the chap
,er-has significance responsive to TIA
question.
BY section 1896, the first Of the chap
ter, such a woman has the same Iigh
aud liberty to acquire, hold, enjoy anG
dispose OF every species of property
and 10 sue and be sued, as II she wer'
unmarried. BY sections 2iOO to 2ies
inclusive, and 4,5, husband and vile
living together. are put ON an equailtl
AZ regards individual property righti
and liabilities. with the exception tia
an advantage liz given the wife r, gardinG
her personal earnings. As regards com
munity property, their rights hre not
Thus equal, but no community al prop
eTty can be dispose d OF without the wife
isins In the conveyan (S24U9, 4lO
A homestead cannot be selected out vi
separate property except by the owner
thereof; but IL may be- select, d out oI
community property by the wife, II the
husband neeleots or refuses to select
Moreover. by s239S 1t is provided tina
"All laws which impose or recognlz.
civil disabilities upon a wife, which arr
not imposed and recognized as existing
as to the husband, are hereby abolished;
and by s2:Sy9, that Henceforth the
rights and responsibilities of the pa,
rents in the absence of misconduct shall
be equal, and the mother shall be- as
fully entitled TO the custody, control and
earnings Of the children rs the father
From this body of legislation il appears
that the wife's relation To the household
ia very different from what 10 once was,
As regards children, she Is equal partner
in management with her husband, who
has no ascendanoy over her save such rs
affection or religion may prompt atr 90
yield. Before the law, both parents,
when living with their children, are
householders, il either is; for they are
co-equal principals and agents of each
other in the management aud control
of their children. Again, as regards
property: whenever the property, or any
of Il, that the inmates OF the household
are occupying or handling in household
affairs belongs to the wife individually,
then the relation of principal and agent
mistress and servant, arises, and she, to
a greater or less extent, assumes the
character of householder in the same
sense or way in which she would were
she unmarried and maintaining an es-
adjustment of her own. IL IL quite
possible, under our present Law, that she
snay be the absolute proprietor and
manager of the homestead, and every
article of use or oomfors about the
premises, so as to be- the regulator of
the conduct of all. including her hns-
band. in relation thereto. so, also, IL
Is quite possible that every servant. il
tany there be, in the family, Is hired by
Der and subject to her dictstion, and
hers only.
Now, when a motion Of the sort here
before the court is made on the ground
that certain Of the grand jurors are dis
| qualified, the motion Is Ia the nature of
challenge, and the burden Is on Ihe
challenger 20 show its validity. These
married ladies have been returned by
the sheriff as qualified Jurors, obedieni
20 the exigenoy If his writ. He is pre-
sumed o. have done his duty aud re-
turned qualified persons. THIS pre-
sumption - open To rebuttal. Pot 10 is
not ~ butted, it seeus 10 me, by showing
that these jurors are wives living with
their husbands. Noa constat that they
are net hoaseholdsrs. Though the rule
be to presume that any particular pieee
| OF property IN possession Of husband or
wife is common prof. erty, think we
should be going 100 far n We should
presume thai ell property Ia possession
and use in their household IL such. And
as To children, II there Is to be a pre-.
sumption on the subject, | suppose /,
woald not be that wife llvirs with he,
husband has none, or none in the house
hold, for no,oriously the contrary Is OF.
tener the case.
conceive the true intent of Our stat
ute to be 10 put every wife into that DO
sition IN the household which a v,f.
| ought to occupy-that Of 90 npanian
and helpmeet OF her husband, sharins
I a A.