The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1894-07-23
POOR CHILDREN.
Big Names For Youngsters Of the Future II
This Idea s'Gfoes-"

Big Names For Youngsters Of the Future IL
This Idea s.Cioes-"
Among the reforms which the coming
woman viii probably insist upon when
she has secured her full legal and polit-
ical rights will BE- modification in abe
present custom which requires her to
adopt the name of the man whom she
marries Ladies of advanced ideas have
long maintained that this custom was
relic of barbarism as well as a badge OF
servitude Its origin can be clearly
traced to the rzncivilized ages Of rapines
when wife was captured, not courted;
won after the fashion of ROmu1us, not
WoOed after the manner of Romeo In
barbarous times and among savage peo-
pie if a man wanted a wife he would go
ont and hunt one, Just as he would food
or some other thing essential to his COM
FORT and after lie had bagged her would
take her home and set her to cooking
and making herself generally useful
She was his property by right Of cap
ture, and he called her by his namo to
prevent any mistakes in the matter OF
title Possibly originally he may have
branded her with his mark to keep
thieves and unprovided bachelors from
helping themselves to his stock As time
went ON, however, and women became
more abundant wives were much more
away from wife hunters apparently de-
creasing in precise proportion to the in
crease in their number, and it became
unnecessary to do more than bring them
into the household camp and give them
the name of their owner.
The custom of forcing the wife to as
sumo her husband S name and regarding
her as a sort of matrimonial chattel
finally became SO firmly established that
woman herself came to acquiesce in it as
a matter Of course and even to take
pride in it. But there IL clearly neither
logic nor Justice in it, and the coming
woman is likely to protest against it
as a survival of barbarism and as a mark
of inequality. If man nowadays, when
he feels in want Of a wife, vent out, as
he did in the early ages, and captured
one, there would be some reason in i'm
posing his name upon her. But IN point
of fact he does not do all the hunting
and capturing at the present day
He is quite frequently the hunted and
the captured, and it is the height Of
audacity for him in such cases to expect
his captor to take his name and allow
him all the honors of war. Apart from
such considerations as these, there IS no
more reason why q woman should take
a mans name when she marries him
there is to be change, why should he
not change his? When John Jones mar
ries Mary Smith, why should he not be
known as Mr. Mary Smith rather than
she as Mrs. John Jones? What has been
the logic for the goose all these years
ought to be logic for the gander under
the new dispensatiOn. Under the old
custom we have had innumerable Mrs
Generals, Mrs. Presidents, Mrs. Doctors,
etc The wife, it must be admitted,
nearly always is Mrs. General in point
of fact, but why should it not be quite
as logical for the husband to take her
title, when she has one, as she is sure
to have under the better regime that is
promised us? If she is a judge, a doctor,
a bishop or the like, the man could be
conveniently and accurately described
as the husband Of Mrs. Bishop or Mrs.
Judge So-and-so, giving him the benefit
both Of her glory and her maiden name.
Before the fall of man and the period
when he was forced to capture his wives
there appear to have been perfect
equity and equality in the matter Of
names in matrimonial contracts. When
Eve married. she did not change her
name to Mrs Adam She insisted on
preserving her individuality and her
family identity by retaining her maiden
name. Nor do business partners at the I
present time surrender their name when /
they enter into these relations. Why
should not something Of the same sort 4
be done in matrimonial partnerships.
If a woman named Green should marry
a man named Dunn, for instance, the +
firm could be known as Green, Dunn q
Co, the company being the general
name for the children. If Mrs. Green I
should have a son John who should I
marry a woman named Brown, he could I
sign himself John Green Dunn Brown.
In this way the family pedigree could \
he preserved in the names, and the fam
lily tree woulG be easily climbed The /
fact that fami ly names would soon grow
as long as the titles of some of the for
eign princes who marry American girls
furnishes no valid objection TO this sug-
gestion, but rather an aristocratic charm.
-Esalti1lacra S111l