The news scimitar. (Memphis, Tenn.) 1907-1926, 1919-01-29
MARRIED WOMAN'S
ACT REPEAL HELD
, ASRETROGRESS|VE
Women Aroused Over Initial
Passage of Bill to Set Aside
Progressive Legislation on
Property Rights.
BY r. p. MAcNIcoL

JDe DllHQ morse Ill LUG Illlit oiiAS ~
has the satisfaction of fancytng
that he makes a progress. tray
There is great deal of timely.
homely philosophy in that little line
a truism written years ago, that lS'
however, peculiarly applicable to the
functioning of Tennessee's present leg
islative assembly. And when the dele
gated lawmakers of commonwealth
such as ours, are palpably retrogresslVe
there is but one Interpretation that can
be fittingly applied: The legislative as
sembly, like the blind horse in the mill,
progresses in fancy only.
Woman's emancipation from cohoi-
tions ineontrovertibly subservient-as
existed under old English laws, in force
in this country until recent years
was the granting of property rights
to married women. Tennessee was
long, long time in getting out OF the
rut Of retrogression and accorolhg 70
women the recognition that is their
due in matters of property rights, both
real and personal. In fact, until the
married woman's act or the BeJach act,
as it is popularity termed, was passed
in March, 1918 defective in 1910, Ten.
!. nessee was one of the last states OF
. the Union to admit, by legislative en-
actment in this respect, the equity IN
granting a married woman the right to
own, control and dispose of property
independently of her husband, a prlvl-
lege he previously enjoyed independent
~ of her. 1t is the law today in every
state of the Union with but two ex-
ceptions. yet the Tennessee legislature
arbitrarily takes it upon itself to hoid
the act iniquitous. inequitable, and is
about to set it aside.
Women Aroused.
Is 1t any wonder, then, that the
women of Tennessee have created such
storm of protest? They see in the
bill to repeal the Bejach act direct
blow at equal rights, a return to a
subservient state that borders closely
on serfdom. Naturally they are indig-
nant, and justly so.
why is it. they ask, that when Ten
nessee really enacts progressive legls-
lation, which it has not, apparently
been prone to do to any appreclanle
take the joy out OF life by nullifyins
the good work Of some predecessor II
office
ferior to men," reads a protest SEM
to the legislature BY the Memphis Equa
Suffrage League, "and generally she has
as much education as the average man
However this may be- there Is no rea.
son why the mothers of men should
be declared by law incompetents.
But the act repeating the Bejach act
which has already been passed by the
house, is not a matter in which equa
suffrage leagues alone are interested
The women of Tennessee consider II
a direct backward step in this era Of
progressiveness and modernity. Sen
ator Frank A.. Fuller, who declares the
repeating act is likely to pass the sen
ate, has been quoted as holding thai
one clause in the Bejach act works
a hardship and an injustice on the
men," and 1t is for this reason its re-
peal was advocated by Seth Walker
r h. fNr Mill a
: asserts that this clause lis so wordet
that in the event married woman
who owns property, dies intestate, hel
husband is not entitled to even the
share in her property secured unde1
similar circumstances to a woman
whose husband dies intestate."
Defect Slight.
The act, say lawyers who have ex
4 amined its provisions, holds drecti!
to the contrary, and a contrary opin
ion Is held by the state supreme cour
the substance of which is that on thu
death of a married woman her hus
band gets all her personal property ant
a life interest in her real estate, pro
vided there are children. Under tn.
act a husband can not defeat, by will
his wife's rights in his estate, but sh
can, by will, offset the husbands rights
The point is that instead Of repeating
the act in its. entirety because Of +;
slight defect, the existence of Sigh
unfairness in its provisions can yer,
easily be remedied by amendment.
Prior to passage of the Bejach ac
it was the law in Tennessee that whel
a woman married everything she pos
sessed became the property of her hus
band to do with as he saw fit, gran
or convey property that was his wife
without her consent and apply tn
proceeds to his own use. She had n
recourse. Her identity, virtually he
very existence as an individual, wa
absorbed, lost to her, the moment sh
ing contract of any kind, neither coul
she bring suit for personal injurie
without her husbands consent an
without his Joining her in the actio
to recover.
An examination of the records wi
clearly show that the trend of legis
lation is away from conditions such a
this. A woman. after marriage, no,
owns and controls her own persona
property owned by her before marriag
in every state of the Union, with tn
exception of Florida and Louisiana l
the former ownership remains with tn
wife, but the husband is given man
agement and control, and is entitle
to all profits and benefits.
Only Two Exceptions.
The husband has no authority owe
his wife's real property in any stat
except Florida and Louisiana. In
states she may convey her separat
v real estate without her husbands con
d sent or signature, subject, however, t
Y his distributive share in six states. Blu
y tshe must be joined by her husband i
any such transfer in Alabama, Alaska
Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana
Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine Ma
ryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Ne
braska, New Hampshire, North Caro-
lima, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Ver
mont and West Virginia. She may wi
her separate property rights in Ter
nessee and 20 other states.
Leaders in state women's clubs,
is understood, have carried the figf
to the legislature in an effort to pre-
vent any such retrogressive action a
is manifest in provisions of the repeal
ing act They hope to be successful
but they have already lost half of tn
w ha nd t,, gts