Evening star., 1939-05-28
Chances Of Wives
Obtaining Work
Grow Simmer
20 Stotes Pass or Study
Lows to Prevent
Their Employment
By the Associated Press.

Inelr employment
By the Associated Press.
NEW YORK, May 27-The work
ing girls chances of getting married
without losing her job were down
to new low today.
A survey of State capitals showed
that in 20 States, almost half the
Nation, proposals to prohibit en-
ployment of wives in Government
service had reached the legislative
or executive decree stage in one form
or other, and in four States the bans
already had gone into effect.
Married women are taking up
Jobs that belong to men," was the
argument. Let them stay at home
and be supported by their husbands. :"
The justice of that argument was
challenged by Miss Mary Anderson,
director of the Women's Bureau of
the United States Department of
Labor.
"Only about per cent of all our
employed persons" are married
women, she asserted, and "in most
cases" they are as heavily pressed
by economic responsibilities" as are
the men who might replace them.
Offers Facts and Figures.
She offered facts and figures to
support her case, and womens Or
ganizations throughout the country
rallied behind her. But opposition
opinion was in sympathy with men
like Maurice Fitzsimmons of the
Wisconsin Legislature.
Mr.. Fitzsimmons is a bachelor.
At the last four sessions of the
Legislature he has introduced a bill
to prevent married women from
working for the State if their hus-
bands are earning $4,000 a year or
more, unless there are dependents
in the family, in which case $400
additional income would be allowed
for each dependent before the ban
was applied. The bill has been de-
feated regularly, but Mr.. Fitzsim-
mons is not deferred.
For encouragement he has the eX-
ample of States like Utah. There
the State House of Representatives
passed bill barring employment in
State, city or county government
jobs of any married person whose
mate makes $500 or more a year.
Although this bill died in the Sem
ate, the two houses concurred in
q resolution instructing State de-
partments to discharge duplicate
jobholderS in the same family.
Thirty-five persons have been dis
missed since then, all of them work.
ing wives.
Texas Passes Law.
Texas acted even more decisively.
The Legislature passed and Gov. w.
Lee ODaniel signed law prohibit
ing a husband and wife to be on the
State pay roll if either made as
much as SITS a month.
Alabama had no law on the sub
ject, but Gov. Frank M. Dixon an
nounced the States policy would be
opposed to both husbands and wives
holding jobs.
Tennessees stand was similar. It
was established by precedent and
had the additional support of a
House resolution in 1885 barring
State employment of any woman
whose husband earned $3.50 a month
or had sufficient property to pro-
vide an independent income
The Iowa Legislature refused to
adopt law which would have kept
wives out of State or local govern
ment jobs if their husbands salaries
exceeded $1,000. But it took an
oblique dig at working wives by cut
ting them of from unemployment
insurance If they quit work to we'd
Four States on Fence.
Four States were on the fence on
the issue of whether wife should
work.
In Florida a Senate committee
was studying bill that would cover
all State, county and city jobs, ex-
cept elective Offices. If approved,
the measure will bar all childless
wives whose husbands earn $500
or more Each child would up the
barrier $3.50.
In Illinois, the House tabled bill
to keep wives out of State jobs
If their husbands got $1,000 a year.
The Senate was considering one
that would eliminate from the pay
rolls any relative of a State en-
ploye receiving over $500 year.
In Massachusetts,, where cam
paign by private employers to elm
mate working wives stirred national
interest last spring, proposed
law to fatty prohibit all married
women from State employment was
referred to the State Supreme
Court for an advisory opinion on
its constitutionality.
In Nebraska, a bill was on file
which would mean dismissal of all
working wives whose husbands
earned $500 or more year.
Growing Restrictive Trend.
Through the rest of the country,
the legislative box score was more
in favor of the wives, although still
more indicative of the growing
trend toward restrictions.
Arizona voted an investigation
of the working wives problem, then
killed it. A bill barring joint en-
ployment of husband and wife at
a total salary of more than $3.50 a
month was introduced in California,
and Withdrawn by its author. The
Connecticut Legislature rejected
bill outlawing working wives whose
husbands make $500 a year. A
somewhat similar law was de-
feated in Idaho.
A kindred measure died in COM
n1ittee in Minnesota. Another met
q like fate in Missouri. Likewise
in North Dakota and Oklahoma.
The Montana State Senate passed
q bill prohibiting employment OF
women married to men earning $125
q month. But the House Suffocated
It in committee.