The examiner., 1886-08-14
WOMAN's COLUMN.
FITTED nv JlISTITIA.

1 make no apology for devoting so mucn
of this column to suffrage for that IS Inc
foundation of all political rights and pollt-
ical rights involve all other rights. IL one
is deprived of the elective franchise he is
secure in no right that he possesses Tor IL
can be taken away at the caprice OF the
lawmakers, who respect no power save
that of the ballot. To illustrate:
In 1860 the women of New York, after
the most assiduous and determined eHoTt,
succeeded in securing the passage of Din
by the legislature of that state making the
property rights in the estate of deceased
husband or wife, equal for the survivor;
also a bill giving the mother an equal right
with the father to the custody or their
children. The rebellion broke out, and
with loyal zeal We, women, fastened to the
front to nurse the sick and wounded Union
soldiers, and while intent only upon saving
the rights and liberties of the nation, our
lawmakers at Albany rewarded our devo-
ton to our country's cause by depriYing us
of our own rights, quietly repeating those
laws lust enacted in 1860, thus undoing all
the work we had struggled so hard TO ac-
complish, and TO this day mother has no
legal right TO her OVID infant in that stale,
or in any other in the Union, save three:
provided it is born in wedlock. Does any
one believe that the lawmakers OF New
York would have peTpetrated such an out
rage upon the mothers of that stare, II
women had possessed the ballot, when
made them legislators !? By the operation
of the law which deprives the mother OF
the control of her infant the most heart
rending cruelties are committed.
Not MANY wears since an Irish woman in
New York married Chinese laundry man
in that CITY. A female infant was born to
them. When it was year old, the father,
regardless of the tears and prayers OF MS
wife. took the infant away and sent it to his
kindred in China. to have its feet bound up,
and crippled, like other Chinese children, and
to be reared like them. The law gave the
man a legal right to do this, and The dis
tracted mother had no appeal, and unable
to bear loss, so much worse than death,
she became hopelessly insane. But It was
only a poor Irish woman's child, and the
case had no influence toward a repeal OF
the brutal law in New York, though in
New jersey a similar case awoke the legls-
lature to the cruelty of the law, and that,
now is the only state this side of the Miss
issippi, where a husband has not the right
to dispose of his child even before its birth.
The case alluded to was this: young
lady, a teacher, married an educated young
German who was III poor health. She
tenderly nulsed him, but his disease deyel-
oped into consumption, and a few days be-
fore he died he sent for lawyer with
whom he was closeted some hours, Tor
what purpose she could Lot imagine, as he
had no property, she having supported
him, he, therefore, she thought, could not
be making will.
A few weeks after his death, their child
was born, and the grief of the bereaved
wife for the loss of her husband to whom
she was devotediy attached found some re-
lief in watching the opening faculties of
her babe. which was doubly dear to her,
for its fathers sake. Soon after it became
year old, the mother was surprised by the
call of stranger who was accompanied by
the sheriff. The stranger proved to be the
husbands father, who had come to seize
the child, its father having willed it to his
parents in Germany before it was born, and
the law of the state compelled her to sur
render it, and she had no alternative.
Some women do not want to vote, they
| shave all the rights they want" We do
not believe this New Jersey woman had all
the rights she wanted, nor the poor Irish
Woman in ev York. When viii the
/ Blessed law come IN which an iIIiarE TO