The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-05-04
LAWS INJUSTICE TO WOMEN.


Scotr-E CrftfcIsms TO the EdHS0r or tKx
New York Times.
l have read criticisms OF my pamph-
let Laws Discriminating Against
Women in the State of New York."
by Mrs. Francis NJ Scott in The Times
of March 81 and April /. Unfortunate-
~ the Supreme Court does not concur
with Mrs. Scott In her interpretation
OF the law. | wish 1T did. For In
stance:
where a married couple take board
ers into their home and the wife takes
charge of the house, the profit derived
from such business belongs to the hus-
band, Notwithstanding the statutes re-
lative to married women and their CO.
tates. Briggs v. Devoe, SO. App. Div
155.
"A married woman cannot make =
binding contract with her husband for
her services having no connection with
separate business and estate, al
though the same are to be rendered
outside OF her household duties, and
although he cannot require her to per-
form such duties.
"A wife may contract with her hus-
band, but in regard to her separate 60
tate only."--Bleachniska " Howard
Mission. $780, N. Y, AT.
When she works for him out OF
doors upon his farm she is entitled to
no compensation, and his written
promise to pay her therefore Is with.
out considerations N. T.. 36S; Ia,
N. Y, S07.
when a wife works kith her hus-
band for another IL there Ia no special
contract that she Is to receive the
avails of her labor. they belong to him.
and he Is entitled to recover therefor
--Holcom v. Harris 1855. N. Y, EST.
AzxA -
the Domestic Relations law. wherein
she states that ''the surviving parent =
may. by deed or last will. dis
pose Of the custody and property 81
the child" The word property" should
read tuition" The mother has NJ
interest In or control over the property
of the child during the lifetime Of The
father. He liz the sole heir and ne1rt
OF kin OF the child. If he be dead tho
and sisters, and shares the property
equally with them, which the father
never does.
Although the statute makes the
mother joint gardian with the father
of the person Of her child, the courts
hold.
Where a husband and wife have
separated because unable to agree, and
there Is no evidence that they are not
equally fit custodians OF their Don y
years old. the father, by reason OF his
paramount right in law, il entitled to
the custody OF the child."-People en-
rel. Sinclair v. Sinclair Al, Misc. Rep.
230.
THE natural right of the father to
act as guardian of his children will be
set aside only where he is not M
perssss and the interests Of the infants
require another OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES az
Tulley Infants, 81, Misc. Rep. 1S4.
Mrs. Scott Is In error in her state-s
ment that the wife never shares the
responsibility of the support Of the
family, no matter how much proper
ty she may have. The wife must pay
for necessaries for the family II tho
husband does not.
Obviously when a wife works with
her husband, as the majority of Am4r~
lean women do, upon the farm or oloo~
where, and her earnings belong to him
she has no opportunity to acquire pre-
perty which the law calls her own.
This would be quite different II IT,
matrimonial aliience were q real paxes
nership, each partner having equal
rights and equal privileges, in whtaA
case the present law would be un3unt
to men. But the woman's time In ~
valuable as the mans, whether uhQ
makes the home or works Qutaido,~ az
botn, as so many do, and she should
have an equal share In the profits a.
the concern: 1t should be beyond thA
power Of either to will or give away
more than one-half. We want the man
and the woman to be recognized - khe
family. and not the man alone. AZ
present the wife has no legal interest
in the personal property Of the hua-S
band. though she helped to accuma1.
Iate IL and ha NAV will II AWAY -