The central record., 1914-09-10

take so much of our
time that the nurs-
cries will then be AE&Sse&
even more neglected vIRA BoARMAN
than they are now. "hlIEHousE'
The Suffra gists. on the other hand
believe the ballot will help mother
to take better care of her little ones.
Through it she will have a voice in the
control of all the conditions that af'ert
not only the home. but the lives cf her
children. from milk inspection to street.
school, playground and hospital regu.
latiOn
The Mothers Right.
But from whatever angle we locs.
whether we want to vote or not We
none of us doubt mothers respousi-
bility toward her children, and we
never think Of questioning her right 10
look after and control them. AS we
shall in the future accept woman suf-
frage, We now accept this m0tacr's
right to her children as such IL nat,!ral
thing that many of Us do not probably
realize that it is of very recent date;
that in the beginning Of the last cell
fury the mother had no such light
The law denied it to her. Blackstone:
explained that II mother. as such. is
entitled TO no power. but only to Fever
ence and respect"
Let us consider the meaning of tie
former domestic helplessness of the
mother: The husband was master Of
all. He had absolute and undisputed
control Of his children. He could decd
or will them away from their mother.
even a child unborn. at his death. And
this he could do with his children. bu;
not with his property. before he him
self was of age.
A mother was compelled by law TO
bring up her children in the religious
faith of their father. even if she did not
herself believe in it, \ mother must lie
meek and Obedient and never interfere.
How" said Lord WynfoTd in the
possibly educate his children ii the
wife We're allowed to interfereT'
But even then she could be lriven
from her home. Her husband could be
cruel, brutal openly and grossly un-
faithful. and no power could bar his
right to take his children from Ter. al
though the wife be blameless.'
On the other hand. IL woman who
should attempt to retain Ter children
against her husbands will was liable
to Imprisonment"
Old Time Practices.
We read instances of children tasen
from their mother ana given by lie
father into the hands Of his mistress
and of babies torn from the mother 5
arms to die.
When it was proposed TO curb ii
mans power over his wife and children
the bitterest opposition was encoun-
tered Legislatures for SeneratiO re
fused to interfere with what was called
1.-The divine prescriptive right of fa-
thers''
Against steps toward the equal
guardianship laws We find these objec-
tionS urged:
This bill is grossly immoral beca;is,.
it directly annuiS the fathers right to
have sole command III his own house
and over his own children"
And, as is predicted of woman suf-
frage today. it would encourage do
meStic disSensiOnS."
Said one old time legislator. The
hlrdShipS ana injustice TO women in
this instance are great. but not create:
than in others. and all such instances
arise out of their general position lis i'll
ferior members Of the social and polit-
ical body" The modern sufrragist
could say no more.
Equal Guardianship Laws.
We have now reached in this country
a point where almost One-third OF our
states have equal guardianship laws.
We can look back to the opposition
which this reform met ana which was
so slowly and laboriously overcome.
We can afford TO smile at the alarms
and the false predictions which were
expressed during the long struggle. and
we can Sep clearly in them the very
same spirit that is opposing woman
suffrage today We can learn. roo. rom
such epOchs in lawmaking that decades
of bitterness and struggle will be
spared MS when women are no longer
''the inferior members Of the social and
political body"