The true Democrat. [volume] (Bayou Sara [La.]) 1892-1928, 1913-05-17
LOUISIANA LAWS AND WoMEN'S
PROPERTY.
W. O. Hart, in Daily Picayune:

w. o. Hart, in Daily Picayune.
Of all the articles regarding the laws
of Louisiana in reference to married
women, that recently published in the
Times-D Democrat, from the pen of Mr..
Fred Haskin, is probably the most abb
surd | have ever seen and should be
contradicted.
Mr.. Haskin is usually correct in his
articles, but, like many others who at
tempt to construe the laws of different
states, he necessarily fails thereat and
while / am not particularly familiar
with the laws of all the states, know
that there are inaccuracies in his arti-
Gle regarding other states, though not
as far from the law, perhaps, as those
about this state.
Let me quote what he says:
"In Louisiana married woman can
not make any disposition of her prop
erty without the consent of her hus-
band In the eyes of the law he is the
owner of everything which had been
hers at the time of her marriage Even
the clothing in her trousseau does not
belong to her. The man who took the
clothes and jewels from his wife and
distributed them among his female rel.
atives was sustained by the law of
Louisiana.
"A woman, in Louisiana is not even
considered legal witness TO will.
| Toward the close of her life, Mrs. JEFF.
ferson Davis desired to add codicil
to her will, bequeathing to certain
chapter of the Daughters. of the Cor
federacy collection of valuable relics
which had belonged to her husband.
She had this codicil witnessed by two
women, and, when the action became
public, it was ascertained that the gift
was ineffective in Louisiana, because
women's signatures are valueless. For
tunately this was discovered in time
for Mrs. Davis to correct the mistake
and secure masculine signatures"
1t is not an absolute proposition of
Louisiana law that "a married woman
can not make any disposition of her
property without the consent of her
husband" In, the first place, let me
say that in baking her will her hus-
band has no control whatever over any
disposition which may be contained
therein; and If the husband refuses to
consent to his wifes sale or mortgage
of her property she may apply to the
court to be authorized without his con-
sent, and where the wife is separate
in property from her husband, which
is often the case by marriage contract
and by judgment, she can dispose of
her movable property entirely without
his consent.
Married women need protection from
themselves as well as from others. and
in my experience of over thirty-five
years at the bar of Louisiana / have
never heard of case yet where any
wife suffered any hardship by being
unable to dispose of her property with
out the consent of her husband or by
the court.
Again Mr.. Haskin says: an the eyes
of the law, he 1.-THE husband) is the
owner of everything which had been
hers at the time of the marriage. Even
the clothing In her trousseau does not
belong to her." This is absolutely in
correct. Property owned by the wife
before her marriage, and that either
donated or bequeathed to her special
ly during marriage, or inherited by her,
is beyond the control of her husband,
and he can not dispose of any fraction
thereof without her consent, nor can
she pledge or incumber same for his
debts, except that she may use it to
have him released from prison. The
wife may give its administration to her
husband, in which event the revenues
go into the community, but she may
resume this administration at any time.
even the clothing in her trousseau
does not belong to her 1.-THE wife,"
This will probably be great surprise
to the lawyers of Louisiana who read
1t, as there is no such principle of law
in this State. Even marriage presents
are the separate property Of the wife,
as has been decided by our courts.
This sentence from Mr.. Haskin's ar
ticle deserves special attention: '"The
man who took the clothes and jewels
from his wife and distributed them