Woman's chronicle. (Little Rock, Ark.) 1888-1???, 1890-02-22

and work brought home the dollar she had earned
but it was her husbands dollar. The law gave it
to him. II wife wrote book, the copyright and
all the profit that might come from it were her hus-
bands. The law gave it to him.
There is alive today, in the State of Maine, q
woman who, by many years Of sewing as a tail
Dress, laid up SO much money that when she mar
rled, rather late in life, there was enough to buy
lot and build house. But, by the law, the money
belonged to the husband, hence the house and lot
belonged to him. When, after several years, the
husband died, his brothers came and took posses
sion of the house. They went all over it without
leave asked Then they began TO tell her which
room they thought she could have the use of as
cher thirds The astonished wife, who had no
idea the property did notbeong to her, asked these
intrusive relatives of her husband what they meant
by this interference. They answered that by the
death of their brother they became heirs to the
property, and that she had, and could have, only
the life use of one-third of it.
But the indignant woman said II earned every
cent of the money by which this house was built.
From the stones in the cear-wal to the nails in
shingles, paid for every cent of it. You shall
not have the house..
They defed her. She consulted lawyer. To
her dismay she found that her marriage extin-
guished her right to all the earnings of her life
She entitled only to the use of onethird of it,
and even that third would belong to her husbands
brothers after her death. How hard it was How
her sense of justice rebelled! The wronged woman
thought it over.
At last she said to herself, IF I cannot have
this house, nobody shall have it" and she set fire
to it and burned it up. Who can blame her? But
she had violated the law. She was guilty of arson.
She was arrested tried and sentenced to two years
in the State prison. This sentence she served. 1t
was the shortest the law allowed. 1t was imposed
by court which knew all the facts in the case,
which felt the injustice of the law, and which,
hence, gave her the shortest possible sentence.
Thanks to them! But can any sane person sup
pose that if women had been voters such laws as
those quoted above could ever have existed?
The law which dealt so unjustly with the per-
sonal property of the wife was scarcely less bad in
regard to her real estate. Whenever the wife had
child born alive, the life use Of the land or the
houses which she had earned or inherited, passed
at once TO the husband The fee of the property
remained with the wife, but the rents, the crops
and all that could be made from it belonged to her
husband as long as he lived The wife was still
entitled to food, clothes and medicine, but that
was all the law gave her. If the wife died, leay-
ing children, the law did not divide her property
with her children, as it does the property of the
father at his DEATH The use of it still belonged
to the husband who not unfrequently married
again. and the children of the second wife had all
the benefit Of the first wife's property.
els there any way by which | can get for my
children the use Of the property my mother brought
to my father?" asked mother whose own children
were at an age when they needed help in their ed
ucation. II was her only child. She brought
my father all the property he ever had, but he
used it for the children Of his second wife. can
get none Of it,"
The law gave him that right, and there was no
help for it. Does any one believe that, if women
had votes, the children would be so defrauded?
sThe estate by the courtesy" is the very pleasant