Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-05-11
BY EMMA BUGBEE.

gave IL their deepest 0eVOGlOn nave
transferred their activities to new
causes.
What are these new causes?
What is the trend of the woman
movement in general?
Is there anything left for women to
fight for?
Jury service is one of the few fields
of public activity in which women have
yet to obtain equality with men under
the law. Only 81 States, the District of
Columbia and Alaska now permit
women to sit on juries, and in a ma
jority of these the permission was in
herent in the granting of the fran
chise.
Where the statutes enacted before
1920 designated jurors as persons, {"
electors" or legal voters" the women
were admitted to the jury lists without
special enactment. In other States the
laws had been framed without thought
of coming woman voters and employed
such phrases as male electors" male
citizens" "all male persons over 81
years OF age; hence it became neces-
sary to change such laws, and this has
proved far more difficult task than
the women anticipated.
View of New Yorker.
Voicing their bewilderment at the re-
oeated refusal of the New York Legis-
lature to change the law, Mrs. Leslie j.
Tompk1ns, chairman of the Manhattan
League of Woman Voters, said at the
most recent hearing:
Jury service Is both a right and a
duty of citizenship. Regarded as a
right, women as citizens should possess
It, Regarded as duty, women as citi-
Gems should be compelled to per-
form it.
Women are now serving on juries in
81 States, in Alaska and In the Dis
trict Of Columbia. The preponderance
OF opinion among the judges and dis
trict attorneys of those States is that
woman jurors are success. They have
served willingly. conscientiously and
competently. All agree that the condi-
tons in the courts have improved, that
the atmosphere of the courts Is better
and that the ends of justice have been
more adequately served since women
have been In the jury box. If that is
true in other States, why would it not
be true in New York? In what way
are we different? Why must this great,
rich, important State of ours be always
among the last to enact progressive,
forward-looking legislation? FRANKLY,
gentlemen, the situation is very per-
picking to us women"
The problem is further complicated
by 1ndecision as to whether women
should be compelled to serve or should
be permitted to do so at their own vo-
lltion In nine States the jury service
is compulsory for women, while in the
others 1t is permisSive. The compulsory
type is asked In New York State by
the, tne w , organizations. Looking
upon jury service as duty they feel
that there should be no lesser obliga-
ton upon women than upon men to
perform this duty and that the same
reasonable grounds for exemption would
be allowed individual women as indi-
vidual men. Mothers of small chill
dren, for example, could be exempted
as easily as physicians or men whose
business required their constant atten-
ton.
Service Seen as Duty.
Mrs. F. Louis Slade, former chairman
said: --~
THE league is interested in Jury serv-
Ice as a civic duty and for this reason
mas never consented to a pernissive
Dill. The Al exemptions allowed men
In this State make the New York law
SO permissive now that lawyers and
Judges are at their wits end to get de-
pendaole and intelligent jurors. If to
the law were added merely a permission
TO women who wished to serve We
should get mighty few .women-nat-
uraliy, since women and men are yery
much alike in their desire not to in
convenience themselves in the service
Of the State"
From the feminist point of view
tnere remain also few discrin1ins-
LIONS against women under the nat
uIahzation laws of the United States
Inc famous Gable act, passed in 1922.
one OF the first fruits of woman
SuHrsge, IS now found to have some
oeIects winch the women desire to
have amended. This Is the law which
Wiped out a previous enactment under
which an American woman MARRYING
foreigner lost her American citizen.
ship. 1t established the principle of
independent citizenship for married
An alien woman who married a cjt,-
zen OF the United States after the
passage OF the Gable act did not he
come a citizen by reason of such mar
rage, nor did the naturalization of the
husband after that date confer citizen-
snip upon the wife, but provision was
made enabling her to become a citizen
IN ner own right on compliance with
the requirements of the naturalization
law after a one-year period of resi-
uence: similarly, woman citizen of
the united States who married an
alien after the passage of the Gable
act in 1922 did not thereby forfeit
ner citizenship unless she married an
alien ineligible to citizenship. In the
latter case she ceases to be a citizen
OF the United States during the con-
unuance of the marital status.
Distinctions Are Noted.
Two distinctions are thus made, even
under the Gable act, between the citi-
zenship OF men and of women. First,
ineligible to citizenship without losing
nus own status as an American citizen,
out the converse is not true. Second,
a woman married to natura,ized citi-
zen loses her citizenship through con-
Ilnueo residence outside the United
states, but a native-born male citizen,
married to an alien woman, does not
lose his citizenship through continued
residence in foreign country.
The famous case Of Mrs. Ruth Bryan
owen, daughter of william Jennings
Bryan, married to an Englishman and
since naturalized brought the intrica-
cies OF the naturalization law into the
public eye recently, although In her
case the problem involved was only one
OF the continuity of her citizenship.
The inequality between men and
women, even under the Gable act, was
condemned by DR.. Emma Void, treas
urer of the National Woman's Party, III
the following passage:
mo similar laws apply to man. He
may marry person of any race what
ever without loss of citizenship or Of
right to be admitted to citizenship. He
may live outside of the United States
indefinitely, may ALLEVIATE himself COM
pletely from his country and, short of
f,IadniVa0 al1o g.