Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-12-14

w has rights, but she
always has given me
to unders ;and that she is the only one of
her kind existing under a general rule Of
oppression of the sex, and has made me
quite despair of ever attaining similar
rights myself-in case 1 should want them.
AS a matter of fact. don't want them.
In my opinion, a well-made gown, a be-
coming hat and the determination to win
| are more powerful than the law, higher
education or the right to vote in accom-
plishing woman's success in life. Others
think differently, however. When I am
fat and forty 1 may think differently my
self. Accordingly, to be sure of my flu
ture in Washington, let time do its worst.
l set out the past week to learn just what
are the restrictions of womans rights in
the District of Columbia. I have found
tell it not to Susan B. Anthony-that here
the seat of the capital of a nation univer-
sally advertised as being glorious and free
above all others, the emancipation of wo-
man has only just begun.
In the first place, l was curious to know
the facts about the law which has been
made the subject of much discussion, and
senatorial investigation has been pro-
posed in consequence of the remarkable
| case recently in court which raised the
question whether man has the right to
dispose of his children, with utter disre-
gard for any supposed right of his wife in
them.
What the Law Says.
These facts, as given to me by Judge
Jere Wilson, are: There is a statute in
black and white on the pages of the COM
piled laws of the District of Columbia so
empowering a man, and this statute will
continue in force until repealed by Con-
sress, though Judge Hasner should over
rule its authority in the particular case
| now before the court. This statute gives q
father the right not only to dispose of his
children by will, but also during his life
time by deed conveying his right in
them to others. and tie may further so far
deny woman's right in her child to
will away from the mother a child unborn
at the time of his decease.
This curious old statute was incorporated
into the laws of England under Charles II,
in 1860, and, by Lord Baltimore, was en-
forced in Maryland in good old colony
times. The state of Maryland preserved
the body of laws under which the affairs
of the colony were administered. and such
of them as had not been repealed formed
n part of the law of Maryland inherited by
the District of Columbia at Its birth. Wills
have repeatedly been made under its pro-
visions, and not disputed until in the in
stance at present before the courts Some
years ago a contest arose over will in
which a man thus disposed of his children
The contest, however, did rot refer to this
feature of the will, and only served to
show the application of the law in this
particular. 1t was argued in the Slack
case that the statute IS so incompatible
with the present state of civilization as to
be analogous to the blue laws of Massa-
chusetts. 1t certainly accords with con-
dtionS long since passed away, as the text
in its extraordinary detail shows:
Quaint Language of the LAW.
THAT when any person hath, or shall
have any child or children under the age
of seven months and twenty years, and
not married at the time of his death, that
1t shall and may be lawful to. and for the
father of such child or children, whether
born at the time of the decease of the
father at the time in ventre Sd mere,
or whether such father be within the age
of one and twenty years, or of full age by
his deed executed in his lifetime, or by his
last will and testament in writing, in the
presence of two or more credible witnesses
In such manner, and from time to time, as
ne shall respectively think fit to dispose of
the custody and tuition of such child or
children for and during such time as they
shall respectively remain under the age of
one and twenty years, or any lesser time,
to any person or persons, the possession
or remainder, other than Popish rescu
SAINTS; (2) and that such disposition of the
custody of such child or children made
since the oath Of February, 1916, or here
after to be made, shall be good and effec-
tual against all and every person or FER
sons claiming the custody tuition of
such child or children as guardian in soci-
age or otherwise; G3) and that such person
or persons to whom the custody of such
child or children hath been or shall be SO
disposed or devised, shall, and may main
tain an action of ravshment of word or
trespass against any person persons
which shall wrongfully take away or de-
tain such child children, for the recov-
cry of such child or children; a. and shall
and may recover damages for the same
said action, for the use and benefit of such
child or children.
Rights Under VIII.
"Sec. 2. That such person or persons to
whom the custody of such child or chill
dren hath been or shall be disposed or
devised shall and may take into his or
their custody to the use of such child or
children the profits of all lands, tene-
ments and hereditaments of such child
or children, and also the custody and man
agement of the goods, chattels and per-
sonal estate of such child or children till
their respective age of one and twenty
years or any lesser time. according to
such disposition aforesaid; (2) and may
bring such action or actions in relation
thereunto as by law guardian in COM
mon sociage might do"
In property rights married women of the
District are scarcely better off than in
rights in their children. An act establish
ing these rights in 1869 assures a woman
one point only. THE right of any mar
red woman to any property, personal or
real. belonging to her at the time of mar
riage or acquired during marriage in any
other way than by gift in conveyance from
her husband shall be absolute as if she
were unmarried and shall not be subject
to the disposal of her husband nor liable
to his debts"
Under the provisions of this act, you see,
a woman can't take any real comfort in
any Christmas present her husband may
make her, for the law will sustain him in
taking it away from her any time the whim
seizes him. But this is the least of her
property troubles. The worst is this A
man may desert his wife, go where he
pleases, do what he pleases, for any length
of time he pleases, and should his wife en-
gage in business in the meantime he may re-
turn when he pleases, and under the COM
mon law which entities man to his wifes
services, he may appropriate her entire
capital.
l want to tell wives, Furthermore. to be
careful how they sign mortgages. In the
District woman has no dover in an equity.
Should she, say, sign a mortgage of $1,000
on piece of property valued at 100000, Ill
event of the death of her husband, she has
no right in the remaining $4,000. There is
a provision in the Edmunds act rectifying
this wrong, but it has not yet been deter
mined by the courts that it applies in the
District.
Her Right to Support.