Woman's enterprise., 1922-05-05

cal, intellectual, or spiritual qualitie:
of the person who possesses it. What
do we mean by a John L. Sullivan Of
a man? By Tom Thumb physique
BY Socratic philosophy? How large
an audience would be expected at q
free concert to hear Mrs. Homer
Samuels sing, yet people press fol
place and pay to the limit for the
privilege of listening to the same in.
dividual under the well-remembered
name of CALI Curci.
On the Oath day Of December last
in the city of Chicago, Elsie Hill Of
Connecticut, chairman of the Ma
tional council of the National Wo-
mans Party, was married to Albert
Levitt, professor of international law
in the University of North Dakota.
Miss Hill, who is widely known as
the daughter of the late Ebenzer
Hill, for twenty-one years representa-
tive from Connecticut in the Congress
of the United States, and equally as
widely known as an honor graduate
of Vassar and a teacher of French and
Italian, and internationally known as
a suffragist and a leader in the FEM
mist movement, after marriage an
nounced her intention of retaining her
own name. Immediately some thous-
ands of ignorant and hysterical per-
sons were thrown into convulsions by
this announcement. "Ah! Hal"
chortled the ignorant, "She defes the
law of the land" "Wow! Wow!!'
yelped hysteria. "She has exposed the
Archilles heel of the advanced fem
mist movement; at this vulnerable
spot can we nip and bite forever "
After which, tableaux vivants, an
endless idle talk and newspaper pub
licity. How long ago was it that
Carlyle said: 1--WE are seven millions
If people-mostly fools"? Hasn't the
number tremendously increased since
that day?
There is no law on the statute
books of any state in the Union COM
oelling woman to take her husbands
,ame. It is well-established custom
hat she does so, and, like all we'll
customs, has been, and will
continue to be, departed from by those
Who for any reason may care to exer-
Use their right to do so. That all
will not exercise this right is
proven by experience, since the right
has always been theirs and only a |
very small minority have cared to
avail themselves Of the privilege. That !
more and more women will depart
from the established custom, now
that their attention has been called
10 the matter by the widespread pub
icity on the subject, is, however, in
Quite recently there was organized
in New York city the "Lucy Stone
League" for the purpose of promot-
ing the custom for women to retain
their own names after marriage.
While l have no objection whatever
to women's retaining her name, why
promote the thing? Such an effort
seems almost as unnecessary as an
to force women to take their
husbands name would be. The GUS
tom Of a family name for the family
group, shared alike by father, mo-
ther and children is good one. Since
it is not compulsory, it works no
hardship on any one Of the group. A
man may change his name if he likes
and frequently does. A child, after
he reaches majority, has the same
right which he frequently exercises.
I know of a case where young man,
wishing to marry girl who had
money, changed his name which
chanced to be that Of an insect, to
that of his mother because the young
lady refused to bear the name of the
young mans father. know Of cases
where both husband and wife use the
combined names Of each after mar
riage a notable instance of this being
the Pethick-Lawrences, we'll known
feminists and publicists. I also know
Of cases where the husband has taken
the name of the wife. So that the
prevailing custom Of the wife to take
the husbands name while a good one
is not fixed and irrevocable.
Women who make a name for
themselves, as the saying goes, or
who assume a name for the purpose
of carrying on business, an avoca-