The Richmond climax. (Richmond, Ky.) 1897-1914, 1914-09-30

even more neglected fllsA BOARMAN
than they are now. wHITEHoUsE.
The suffragists, on the other hand,
believe the ballot will help a mother
to take better care of her little ones.
Through it she will have voice in the
control Of all the conditions that affect
not only the home, but the lives of her
children, from milk inspection to street,
school, playground and hospital regu-
lation.
The Mothers Right.
But from whatever angle we look,
whether we want to vote or not, we
none of us doubt a mothers RESPONSE
bility toward her children. and we
never think of questioning her right to
look after and control them. AS we
shall in the future accept woman suf-
frage, we now accept this mothers
right to her children as such a natural
thing that many of us do net probably
realize that it is of very recent date;
that in the beginning of the last CEN
fury the mother had no such right.
The law denied it to her. Blackstone
explained that "a mother, as such, is
entitled to no power, but only to rever-
ence and respect"
Let us consider the meaning of the
former domestic helplessness of the
mother: The husband was master of
all. He had absolute and undiSputed
control Of his children. He could deed
or will them away from their mother,
even child unborn, at his death. And
this he could do with his children, but
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! A mother must be
meek and obedient and never interfere.
"How," said Lord Wynford in the
English house of lords, "could a man
possibly educate his children if the
wife were allowed to interfere?"
But even then she could be driven
from her home. Her husband could be
cruel, brutal, openly and grossly I'M
faithful, and no power could bar his
right to take his children from her, al
though the wife be blameless."
On the other hand, a woman who
should attempt to retain her children
against her husbands will was liable
to Imprisonment"
Old Time Practices.
We read instances of children taken
from their mother and given by the
father into the hands of his mistress
and of babies torn from the mothers
arms to die.
When it was proposed to curb q
mans power over his wife and children
the bitterest opposition was encoun-
tered. Legislatures for generations re-
fused to interfere with what was called
1.-THE divine prescriptive right of ia
TIERS"
Against steps toward the equal
guardianship laws we find these objec-
tons urged:
"This bill is grossly immoral because
it directly annuls the fathers right to
have sole command In his own house
and over his own children"
And, as is predicted of woman suf-
frage today, 1t would encourage do
nestle discussions"
Said one old time legislator, 1.-The
hardships and injustice to women in
this instance are great, but not greater
than in others, and all such instances
arise out of their general position as in
ferior members of the social and polit-
ical body" The modern suffragist
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 and 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 see clearly in them the very
same spirit that is opposing woman
suffrage today. We can learn. too, from
such epochs in lawmaking that decades
of bitterness and struggle will be
spared us when women are no longer
''the inferior members of the social and
political body"