Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1892-06-02
IN WOMAN'S BEHALF.
WOMEN AND LAW.
A Canadian Opinion on why They should
Iic Allowed to Enter the Profession.

A Canadian Opinion on why They should
Ito Allowed to Enter the Profession.
Prejudice dies hard, even in the last
decade of the nineteenth century. Wit
ness the attitude taken by some legal
lights in the Ontario assembly on the
debate on MIR. Balfour's bill TO confer
on the law society power to admit
women TO the study of law. What pos
siblc reason can there be why women
should not be permitted to study law u
they wish to do so? Is not jurispru-
dcncc one Of the noblest, the most pro-
found, the most broadening and elevat-
ing Of all studies In which the human
mind can engageP lIy what right,
human or divine, should the masculine
moicty Of our citizens take IL upon
themselves to say that they must have
monopoly OF the study of this en-
nobling science? The men, pure mind
cd, far-sightcd creatures that they are,
are afraid, forsooth, that II women are
permitted to get u knowledge OF law,
they may wish to enter the courts to
practice IT, and in the course of their
practice may some day come In contact
with something so pitchy as To be fit TO
be handled only by their compeers Of
the other sex. IL not such an argu-
ment as this little too late in the day?
Has II not now been pretty well demon
strntcd that women may be safely
left to follow the dictates of
their own innate and cultured
sense OF proprioty, and that they are
quite as well qualified To judge what Ia
modest and becoming for them rs are
the average Of their mentors OF the 9TH
CIR sex? Is II not, indeed, just ~ possi-
BILE IL that the presence of the ladies at
the bar should have the effect OCCASION
aly Of modifying the character OF the
cross-cxaminations in certain classes OF
criminal cases, and OF preventing the
putting of unnecessary and outrageous
questions. neither justice nor modcsty
would suffer from the charger
But the question Is not whether II II
desirable that women should practice
, MS barristcrs in all kinds of cases. II !
/ whether they shall he permitted u
, share educational advantages which ar
A furnished ut the public expense, and 4
o which women therefore contribute thei
r share of taxation. II is also whethc
. women can be trusted 10 govern then
n selves In accordance with their ow
g sense OF propricty, or whether II Is me-
q cssnry that they should be restricte
Il and hnmpercd at every term by limit
= tions prescribed by the sex which hi
l. hitherto had II monopoly of the Law
II making business, and which Is onl
y lust learning at this late day TO NJ
IT that monopoly with anything like y ju
ID md reasonable consideration for Il
lie rights Of the other sex.
70 We certainly are not particular
NJ anxious 10 see women advocates in Il
" civil and criminal courts, but we n
Is anxious that women should be at II
IL erty 10 follow this or any other hone
IN able business or profession, " tn
choose TO do so and can find demal
IN for their services, We confess that '
Of have never before given much thong
% 20 this particular phase OF the questi
re OF woman's sphere, rs II has never
DIS fore, we believe, been made livi
or question in Canada. May we be p
cr doned II we add that tho weakness
cir the objections raised against Mr.. II
four's bill, even more than the cogeI
ar of the reasoning in its support, hi
ur convinced us OF the essential justice
M the measure. Toronto Week