The Brunswick news. [volume] (Brunswick, Ga.) 1906-2016, 1915-03-26
Wife Earns; Husband Owns!


York state decided at White Plains,
N. Y. that a husband is entitled 10 all
his wife's earnings unless he makes d
contract with her to the contrary.
Mary Hopke, in the case in question,
wife of Andre Hopke, worked for
several years after their marriage,
earned and saved. With the money
thus earned and saved the Hopkes
purchased piece OF property, putting
T it in the name OF the husband for the
sake Of convenience Later Andre
transferred the title TO his wife, in the
belief that as she had earned the pur-
chase money it righuully belonged to
/ her. He was in financial difficulties
and did not wish her TO lose the fruit
OF her own labor because Of the acct
dent of having the title IN his name
Mr. Hopke's creditors objected TO
the transfer on the ground that it was
made to defraud them of their dues
Whatever the intention beneath the
transfer il does look as if Mary had a
right TO the property, doesn't il? PEG
pie living in the twentieth century
have n sort OF idea that it was only in
slave days such as those in ancient
Rome or medieval Russia-now long
since past and gone that one person
could demand the earnings of the la
Dor OF another and be protected in this
demand by the law.
In the Empire State, however, it
seems that women are not yet PEG
pie According to the property laws
OF that august commonwealth, they
are slaves
It's not very long since another New
York Judge decided that money earn
ed and saved by wife and deposited
in a Joint account under the names OF
both husband and wife belonged to
the bsuband alone. This Judge, you
may remember made his decision
with regret that the law compelled
him to decision manifestly unfair"
The ruling OF the court sitting at
White Plains was this
unless there is a specific agree
mcnt or contract between them, al
lowing the wife to engage in sep
arate business and keep her earn
ings, the husband is always entitled
to all of the earnings of his wife, as
well as her services during marriage"
The essence OF this decision, com
PEELED like the previous one, by the
moss grown antiquity OF New York
laws regarding women. is that woman.
by marriage. forfeits her freedom as
Il human being to earn money by work,
AS she cannot regain it without
proving adultery on the part of her
husband, pouring that disgrace over
her childrens heads il would seem as
il New York were rather good state
in which TO remain single!
Suppose husband is idle or drunk
en-. Suppose his wife goes to work
outside the homo - snnnort herself
and the children The husband in
New York can demand every cent of
her wages and can spend It on him
self II he earns money he can be
compelled to support his family But
il he does not and his wife does. he
can have all hers for his personal use.
II she holds any back to buy the baby
shoes. she can be arrested in theory.
at least-for theft Aad besides this.
she can bee ompclled to do all the
housework after her working hours.
because her husband is entitled TO
her services in the home as wen as
her earnings out of it,
True, they can make a formal con
tract allowing the wife to engage in
separate business and keep her earn
/ ings." But Il they engage in the same
business, even that loophole is closed
fup.
And yet, there are those who won
der why women who know these
things should be working SO hard in
New York TO grt the votel
|