Evening star., 1930-12-07
Fifty Years Ago
In The Star

I'm the struggle for womenS rights"
says an editorial In The Star Of Novem-
80 - Der 2e, 1880. "too
Property Rights much Importance i
Rov Txyow.n attached to the bal.
1Or women lot and not enough
to the rights Of property. The tend
ency Of the laws. even in the most en-
lightened and progressive lands, has
been to take from the married woman
all property rights and invest, them in
the husband. Indeed, we can go farther
and say that this has been the spirit
and effect Of the laws, and that the
tendency at present Is in the same direc-
ton. Within the past few years there
has been manifested, In some OF the
States, disposition to break away
from this old superstition of the COM
mon law that it was dangerous to In
trust a married woman with any free
dom in the possession. management OF
or disposal of property. Strange as 1t
may appear, Texas has advanced farther
than any other State of the Union in
according to married women the rights
Of property necessary to protect them
selves and their children. Not only have
no injurious consequences resulted In
marital relatAens in consequence OF the
liberal laws Of the States toward the
women, but it Is claimed that society
has been greatly benefited. The advo-
Gates of married womens property
rights have watched the effect OF this
legislation closely, and they assert that
one result has been to protect the home
stead interests Of families, and that
the women have shown themselves to
be- upon the whole, more cautious than
their husbands. They have not been so
easily enticed into speculative schemes
as the men. On the other hand, the
ruling idea of the wife and mother who
has 1t in her power to control properly
Is to hold on to the home Of herself and
children
~
In The Star of December 2, 1880, the
following account Is given Of the 1irst
Mrs. Lockwood Before Sefore ' the
U. S. Supreme Court. snited : 4 e I states J ~ :
Court by Mrs. Belva Lockwood, who so
years ago was one Of the leaders in the
woman suffrage movement:
I'm the United States Supreme Court
yesterday the case of Kaiser against the
Freemans Savings g. Trust Co. came
up for argument, and Mr.. Woods and
Mrs. Belva A. Lockwood appeared for
the appellant and Mr.. Totten for the
appellee. Mr.. Woods opened the case
for the appellant. The question arose
upon note and q deed of trust to Sc
cure its payment for $4,000 and inter-
est. Mr. Woods argued that the appel
liant, being a married woman, could not
legally be q party to such q contract,
and in support Of his view cited various
cases from Ohio and Pennsylvania; one
Of the latter, he said. was decided by
Mr.. Justice Strong, and on referring Il
1t Judge Strong said that either he die
not understand that case or the coun
sci did not; to this the counsel respond
ed that both Of them understood the
case. The point in the case under argyll
ment was that married woman could
not cucumber her own property by a
deed made by herself and husband.
Ohio cases were cited by counsel, but
they appeared to have been on questions
relating to her personal liability on per-
sonal contracts. After the argument of
Mr.. Woods had been concluded the
court declined to hear counsel for the
appellee; thereupon Mrs. Belva A. Lock-
wood, who had prepared and filed the
original Dill In the case, arose and ex-
pressed a desire to be heard in support
OF the appeal. The court said she might
proceed. She then presented her views
of the case In an argument of about
40 minutes duration, and this was thu
flrst time Mrs. Lockwood had an oppors
tunity to argue q cause In the United
States Supreme Court"