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


The law denied to married mothers all legal
right to their children. The father had the sole
legal right to them. He nigh will the child away
from its mother, even before its birth. He could
appoint a guardian, not the mother, and such
guardian had the sole control of the child. Much
cruelty existed under these laws. In one case,
the children, one not yet three years old, were
taken by the father and carried away, the mother
did not even know where for years. She was a
wise, good mother, but she was robbed of her
children all the same.
In another case which occurred in Boston, the
father on his death-b bed had appointed testament
ary guardian for his children. He had property
for them, and thought man could take better
care OF it than a woman could. There was no
trouble until few year later, when the mother was
about to marry again. Then the guardian asserted
his rights He assured the mother that in case
she married he should take the children. The
mother, believing in her divine right, contested the
case in court. Judge Chapman was on the bench.
The will was read. There was no doubt about the
guardian. The father had appointed him.
The judge said "However much | may regret
it, have no choice but to order the children given
to their guardian, =
Then ensued scene. The little ones elung to
the mother with cries and tears, but all the same
the court gave them to the guardian. 1t does not
matter that the case was adjusted afterwards. The
law was not altered
In another case, the father, by will, gave his
unborn child to brother who lived across the sea-
He made the child's Inheritance depend upon the
mother compliance with the will.
When this document was read, The young wife,
with blanched cheeks asked els it possible that
dead father has more power over his child than its
living mother?"
But SO it was. Does any enc believe that II
women had votes such laws could be made? These
are the laws which prevailed everywhere up to a
time within the memory of persons now living
the time when the woman's rights movement be-
gan. Half a century of laborious agitation has
brought about great change for the better. Yet,
even now there are only four States where mar
ried mother has any legal right to her children
while she lives with her husband "Persons OF
non-sound mind and memory, and married women
cannot make will" says an old law. To this
day, in Massachusetts, though a married woman
may have earned all her property, she can only
will half Of it without the consent OF her hus-
band written on the will, unless she have given it
all to him, in which case his consent is taken for
granted The law NEEDLES with every interest of
woman. From the day the little girl baby lies in
her cradle till her last will goes to probate the law
settles everything that concerns her. She may
be fined, imprisoned, taxed, and hung, but she has
no voice in the law that may do all this to her.
Should not women vote? may be asked with great
pertinence in view of the laws that atflict them.
With still more force it may be asked now, when
the schools, even colleges, enable women to secure
education equal to that obtained by men. Why
should the young women who have won the de-
gree Of B. A. or NJ A., or LII. D. be ranked Pc
litically with idiots and felons as they are now?
Why should not the young men and maidens who
are peers in the public schools have equal rights
before the law? Why should not our industrious
and thrifty men and women have the same political
rights? The man who owns house or land and
has children in the public school is a voter. Why
obo tho vho her house and