Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-12-24
RIGHTS OF WOMEN.
The Old Laws Relating to Disposal of
Children.

| To the Editor of The Evening star:
In recent issue of your paper appeared
| the report Of legal decision bearing upon
| the guardianship of children, and unfolding
| the absolute right Of the father to devise
| IL en- by will Without presumng to ques-
| ticn the propriety of the verdict or the
merits of the individual contestants, which
latter point appears to have carried little
weight in the case at issue, since the mai
ter resolved itself into a question of legal
Interpretation, pure and simple, it may he
allowable to doubt whether the District OF
Columbia any state still bearing upon its
statute book the law so interpreted has
for pride in it's possession.
Promulgated in an age when social moral
ity was at a low ebb, and in a country
whose political dognas we have long since
| repudated. 1t strikes nineteenth century
woman as peculiar, to say the least, that
such law conceived and executed under
such vastly different social conditions
should be viewed as in any sense appii-
cable to the society of today. If children
are to be regarded as property, to be so
held, devised or disposed of, the laws ap-
plying to the latter should at least in
equal measure hold good for the former
a husband and wife. joint owners of a
piece of real estate, may not individually
and without the consent of the party of
the second part sell or mortgage it, and the
law gives the widow of a man dying in
testate her indiSputable third.
Are children the exclusive property of
the father, or the joint possessions of both
parents?
Upon this question appears to hinge the
applicability of the law. and If decided in
favor Of the former, would 1t not be wise
for every woman, before entering into the
holy estate of matrimony, to protect her
self by legal measures against the possibil-
ity of future injustice in this matter which
SO nearly affects her happness-as it is
| new deemed perfectly proper for her to Sc
cure for her personal use the bulk of her
Inherited fortune?
Not sentiments concessions, but Justice
Is what women have a right 10 claim in
this connection, and if it is withheld from
them. VINO could blame them for refusing
to place themselves in a position where
their dearest earthly possessions night be
Wrested from them at the caprice of a liv-
Ing, or in accordance with the will of a
deceased, husband?
But the children, are they not to be pro-
tected?
By all means; and as 1t would be foolish
to maintain that the parent is always their
best guardian, since the contrary has so
often been proved, let the court, proper
evidence, decide this question. But not the
father nor even the mother, if 1t is a sup
possible case that a woman should ever be
allowed to will her children away from her
husband. since 1t is reasonably conceivable
that in both cases personal rancor, family
complications or financial considera tons
| might exercise an undue influence. Shall
a country which while 1t was the first to
manumit its slaves, promises to be the
, last to emancpate its married women from
legal serfdom where a few years since a
man could kidnap his wife if she refused
to live with him and hold her a prisoner at
will in his-in her-own house!
1t is but just to add that such laws,
relics of the middle ages. remain I'M
| repealed in England and America only un-
I'll such time as their enforcement shall
have called public attention to their out
rageous injustice and total inapplicability
to the conditions and demands OF modern
society. There would be less talk about
wcman'S rights If the Silent minority de-
mandtd the instant repeal of a few such
obsolcte enactmentS as the one under con-
sheraton, and if the law of nature and
morality, which has been written by the
finger of God upon the hearts and con-
sciences of His children, found a more
faithful echo in the laws inscribed by man
upon the statute books Of the land.
NJ. d. c.