Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1884-07-03
Supported Wives.



IL has been several times asserted ot late
inlt the laws are more than just to women
and less than Just 10 men. the example
most frequently quoted is that husband is
legally bound to support his wife, while
wife is not legally bound 10 support her has
band There is another side to the case
which is not so often mentioned. The law
gives a husband a right to his wife'S
vices and the services commonly rendered
bv wives are considered worth much more
than board and lodging, when they have to
be performed by hired servant. A curious
illustration of this has come to nv notice in
Massachusetts country town. An old
farmer died childless and without will,
leaving little or no property except bis farm.
The widow was over 50 wears OF age. She
had done the housework for some 80 Years.
had cared for two daughters till they died of
consumption, and had nursed her husband
through wears of helpless invalidism. After
his death, the law entitled her 10 the life use
OF third of the farm She could neither
farm the land nor eat it, and the life interest
of woman over so years old would not sell
for more than a trihe. She had to 90 to
the poor house, where she soon oied insane.
Not long after another farmer died childless,
and without will. The heirs were avari-
cious. They grudged the widow her third.
They discovered and proved flaw in her
marriage, which she had never suspected,
but which invaildated the ceremony. They
were not obliged to give her ANYTHING, and
did not propose TO do so. 1t was hard
case. The judge advised her to bring in
bill for services. She had done the dead
mans housework, the ordinary hard work
Of farmers wife, for years. She had also
been "supported;" but, with the disco 'ery
that she was not married woman; came
too the discovery that her board and lodging
were not an equivalent for her labor. She
brought in bill for her services according
| ly, at the rate of "a week. The court al
| lowed the claim. 1t took all the property
to pay it. and the greedy heirs got moth
| ing.
One of the earliest "remonstrants,' Mrs.
Melusina Fay Peirce, says, in her bright lit
tie book on "Co-operative Housekeeping" !"
| Just out: at IS an entire Misrepresentation
| to speak of any woman who does her own
work as being supported BY her husband.
| She earns her living within four walls just
as surely as he earns his out Of them" !"
Mrs. Peirce might have included wives who
actively oversee servants, since good
house-keeper commands higher pay than a
hired girl.
| In 1880 there were in the United States,
according to the census, 9,945,916 families,
and only 1915 ,655 domestic servants. Thus
only about one family in nine could keep a
servant. even if no family kept more than
one. The great majority Of wives do their
own work. The law which requires hus-
band to support his wife, therefore, is not
'.more than just" to the wife, since it en-
titles him to full equivalent. If there are
wives who do not furnish the equivalent,
| there are also husbands who do not furnish
the support.
There are a few points in which the law
is more than just to women; but these do
not Gffset the more important points in which
it is less than just. The few unfair advant-
ages which the laws do give to women can
almost always be traced to the idea that
women are properly wazls Of their husbands.
OF Of the state, rather than citizens entitled
to equal rights and equal responsibilities.