The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-03-11

'i"SpiHu uIc lnlcstate the vile receives
one tAitd TO one-half OF his personal
property. If she die intestatc he re-
ceives all Of her personal property.
tcode OF Virginia, 1904, section $3.50
In the four suffrage states spouses IN
heiit equally from each other. Nei-
th-r can BY wili, leave more than half
OF his or her property away from the
oihet, and in Colorado and Idaho If
either dies intcStatc. the other Inhcrits
all OF his or her estate
by the Code of Virginia, a father is
cntliiad. next after the children. to Tho
"h3le Of the real estate of :, deceased
chilli. If there be no father the moth
or prothers and sisters take share ana
shai alike. Ia tile absence of :, will.
;he personal property passes in the
same way code OF Virginia. 1901.
section 2551) In the four suffrage
states parents inherit equally from q,
deceased child
"Property Privileges" versus pr,,.rt,
Rights
But, says Miss Seawell "her husband
Is OBLIGED to maintain her in q manner
commensurate with his Income" I'm
"cr sAe law OF Virginia. husband is
responsible for family expense IL he
approves. but only for the real neccs-
- mo ioiisiss II ne JtS1DDTOypS
IA winch case he may revoke his wIfo,.
authority to purchase IN his name
iiea! necessities may be quite Incorn
nlehsurHte with r!ch mans Income
IN tha four suffrage states n hushnr1
II !iabl" FOR a family expense eya, AZ
ne disapproves IN these States no,s
support Is ground for a divorce. In
oEaao non-support Is punishable
oy from thirty TO ninety days I,nnr,s
n H..
VIE GesertIon is ons years Itnnrison.
nheht in the penitentiary. In Virginir
the same oifensc is Punishable hv "a al,
sentence. '"'l
a wife's earnings and personal prop-
e'ty not received from her husband are
IN her sole control In the sumraro
states and a wife may there convey
neF separate property wIthou, her hus-
uahos consent, as in Virginia 7, 4,
n nn".eiore manifest that the property
privil, ges" of Virginia do NOT civ.
VIE az much as the property rirhts of
"Somihg. Colorado Idaho and Utah
WI" ShniI Control the ChiIarc,,
III 'ne states of Utah and Colorado
WIFE is legally responsible for ,be
support OF her husband and cbiidr.n
"heh' oy inhrmity. the husband can.
nor support himself or the family. and
p'SseSSes no separate property, and
P'opeity, undsr the above condtt,ors
~ liable for debts contracted H., 49,.
to' family use. This is simply nu,,inr
20 'ne statutes as n law a custom, OH
nzi'eu oy good women the VIOLA ove.
out there exists In ,hosa ettcta,r
states condition SO vital and en- rs,
r-achins that | shall mention :. in ~
cclihcc'lon by stating the laws in ,bosa
ana IN virginia concerning tho
guardianship OF children.
virginia IS one OF Inc s;,
which, under the old common "a at,,,
PERMITS the father to deed or 70 no
quea'h the guardianship of tho child
- stranger and awav from -
inotner Code. Virginia. 100. seo,inn
-os' Every father may. BY HIS last
ana testament. appoint a guardian
ID, s e'iiu The mother. in
i'Re manner may appoint a guardian,
psoa 'aeu the father be dead Section
-oV" provides that the father. IL lvint..
and, in case OF his death. tho ro,ha,
u III ioF the trust. and II sho remains
married, shall be entitled TO the
CUSTODY or the person Of the minor
no stipulation is made as 10 .hn
tather's fitness or remarriage. I, IL
an nonor TO our Virginia courts that
their Interpretation of these laws IS
more favorable to women than the
ue-iihhu' W yoming Conn.
stat. 1910, section $3.50; Utah CONN
Laws, 1907, section 1885,; Idaho tRny
CODE 1905. section 577D. and Colorado
tRev Stat. 1905, section 2el2) give
the surviving mother the sole and un
conditional guardianship of the child.
In Virginia. during the life OF both
parents. the father is the sole guar
dian. and may control the choice OF
church' school. clothing. medicine and
WORK OF the child. and he, and not the
mother. is entitled TO the earnings of
the child. In the suffrage states, dur
ing the life OF both parents. both
father and mother share in the guar
dianshiD and control OF their children
and in tins chlid's earnings
If. as Miss Seaweil has said. the
ability to provide for the material
ws:fare Of her children is "supremely
important" to mother. by what
superla;ive shall we designate al
mothers solictude and obligation as
work OF her chlldren7 What women
would not exchange leefl irrespons-
bility for joint guardianship?
Is the Marriage Ceremony the Pauper's
Oath.
Miss Seawell states: eff man takes
thu pauper's oath and establishes
legal claim to support by other voters.
ne roses mis- vote. Furtner, she ridi-
culss the lady who confused gratu-
ity like a pension and legal right
like a wife's claim for maintenance
upon her husband" The ''pauper's
OATH" a "gratuity like n pension" "a
wife's claim for maintenance upon
her husband" Let them never be
confounded. Evidently. for woman
10 enter into the marriage contract is
for her to take the paupers OATH"
by which procedure her husband is
obliged TO maintain her and her chill
dren in a manner commensurate with
his Income" novel status for a
pauper. But IS the marriage ceremony
tantamount TO the paupers oath?
Chief Justice Isaac y. Sullivan. In
letter written October 30. 1910. says:
I'm this Western country we do not
consider the wife dependent nor Is
she such, In nearly all cases she does