Shall women vote? : a book for men

GIFT OF
MICHAEL REE^E

Shall Women Vote?

•N

Shall Women Vote?

A Book
For Men

By

CON WAY WHITTLE SAMS

Author of "Sams on Attachment"
and a Member of the Virginia Bar

NEW YORK

THE NEALE PUBLISHING COMPANY

1913

S3

Copyright, 1913, by
CONWAY WHITTLE SAMS

r'
*

To the
ANTI-SUFFRAGETTES

this volume is respectfully inscribed, — to our fair
allies, who have the good judgment and the cour-
age to resist an insidious heresy, and to strive to
keep extant upon the face of the earth true and
lovable women, the most precious gift of the
Creator, in order that they may be the worthy
successors of the sweethearts, the wives, and the
mothers who lived, honored and beloved, before
the world had ever heard of a Suffragette.

284496

CONTENTS

HUSBAND AND WIFE

CHAPTER PAGE

I 15

II 25

III 35

IV 43

V 65

VI 83

VII 102

VIII 116

IX 137

X 167

XI 178

FATHER AND CHILD

CHAPTER PAGE

I 185

II 200

III 210

IV 217

V 229

VI .... 239

VII 251

VIII 255

CONCLUSION

CHAPTER PAGE

I 273

II 284

HI 287

IV 302

V 314

INDEX . .324 to 345

INTRODUCTION

This book is not written for women; it is writ-
ten for men. It is in opposition to woman's suf-
frage, which the writer regards as one of the
greatest afflictions which could happen to any
State. The plan adopted is a review of the laws
and customs of society in the past, contrasting
them with those in force at present, with refer-
ence to the rights of men in the relation of Hus-
band and Wife, and of Father and Child.

Considered from the viewpoint of the effect of
the new "woman's rights" laws upon the rights
of men, one cannot intelligently appreciate nor
discuss the question "Should women have the
right to vote?" without knowing that this question
involves the most vital point in the history of a
movement which has been in progress for a gen-
eration,— a movement which has as its object the
stripping of men of their rights, and the trans-
ferring of them to women and children. The
question must be viewed in the light of what men
have already suffered by this movement, and what
this final demand would mean to them.

The particular laws of only one State are here
given, — those of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Residents of other States may compare them with
their own institutions. Fortunately, they will be
often found to be very different, and should for-

9

remain so, if freedom is to be preserved in
America. The several States of the Union have
exclusive jurisdiction over the subjects herein dis-
cussed, and should preserve the right to decide
upon them as they severally think best.

It is proposed to show in this volume that the
recent changes introduced in Virginia in regard to
the domestic relations, very similar to some
adopted by other States, are enough to undermine
the family, the home, and society itself; and that,
unless they be soon corrected by the several States
of this Union, and by the other governments or-
ganized by men of our race, they will bring untold
evil upon it.

The object of the work is to do good, not evil;
to aid in maintaining peace, not to bring about
disorder. To any but the blind it is apparent that
a contest may be precipitated by the demands of
the suffragettes which could be most bitter, even
to the extent of tearing asunder the tenderest re-
lationships. There is no need for us to have to
go through the agony of such a contest, nor to
suffer the evils which might, could, would, or
should follow from the adoption of the ideas of
these women. The question has been publicly dis-
cussed almost entirely from the viewpoint of the
suffragette. The counter argument has not been
adequately stated. It is the aim of this book to
present the subject in such a way that the men
of this generation can clearly see what effect a
yielding to this demand would have upon them.

10

We will be sorry if what is here written should
offend any woman; but the subject, which is pre-
eminently a practical one, involving matters of
the highest importance, deserves to be fully in-
vestigated; and facts, although they may be dis-
agreeable, or in themselves uncomplimentary,
should not be passed over in such an inquiry. The
suffragettes have alleged that the existing order
of things should 'be changed, and are moving
heaven and earth to change it. It is proper to
inquire fully whether this should be done.

To all womanly women who may feel offended
at any general statements herein, which might be
regarded as reflections upon their half of human-
ity, we say with all sincerity that these statements
are not intended to apply to them. To -the con-
trary, we regard them as the salt of the earth, and
they are not the subjects of the present criticism.
CONWAY WHITTLE SAMS.

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, March 17, 1913.

"Order is Heaven's first law"

Husband and Wife

Husband and Wife

CHAPTER I

"And God said : Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness." (Genesis, I, 26.) "And the
Lord God said, It is not good that the man
should be alone ; I will make him an helpmeet for
him." (Genesis, II, 18.)

The divine view of this relation is left in no
uncertain state by the Bible.

The opening chapter in the history of the
human race deals with this subject, and the
Creator himself laid down the rule which should
apply to it. To Eve he said: "Thy desire shall
be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
(Genesis, III, 16.)

This rule, necessary for the peace and the har-
mony of domestic life, giving a fixed and lawful
authority to the husband as the head of the house,
is repeatedly reaffirmed in the Bible, and consti-
tutes to-day the moral and the religious law gov-
erning this relation.

Isaiah compares the Lord, in a certain case,
to a husband, when he says : "For thy Maker is
thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name."
(Isaiah, LIV, 5.)

15

1 6 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

The relation of Christ to his church is com-
pared to that of a bridegroom to his bride.
(Isaiah, LXII, 5; Revelations, XXI, 2, 9.)

In Romans we read: "For the woman which
hath an husband is bound by the law to her hus-
band as long as he liveth; but if the husband be
dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband."
(Chapter VII, 2.)

And in the letter to the Corinthians we read:
"And unto the married I command, yet not I,
but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her
husband: But and if she depart, let her remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; and
let not the husband put away his wife." (I Co-
rinthians, VII, 10, n.)

So in Ephesians, V, 33 : "Nevertheless let
every one of you in particular so love his wife
even as himself; and the wife see that she rever-
ence her husband."

"Let the 'husband render unto the wife due
benevolence; and likewise also the wife unto her
husband." (I Corinthians, VII, 3.)

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own hus-
bands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the
head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the
church; and he is the Saviour of the body. There-
fore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let
the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also
loVed the church, and gave himself for it."
(Ephesians, V, 22-25.)

HUSBAND AND WIFE 17

So we find the relation clearly defined by St.
Peter :

"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your
own husbands. . . . Even as Sara obeyed
Abraham, calling him lord; whose daughters ye
are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with
any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with
them according to knowledge, giving honour unto
the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being
heirs together of .the grace of life; that your
prayers be not hindered." (I Peter, III, 1-7.)

So in Colossians, III, 18: "Wives, submit
yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in
the Lord."

And in I Corinthians, XI, 3,8,9: "But I would
have you know, that the head of every man is
Christ; and the head of the woman is the man.
For the man is not of the woman; but
the woman of the man. Neither was the man
created for the woman; but the woman for the

man."

In the epistle to Titus St. Paul admonishes the
aged women to "teach the young women to be
sober, to love their husbands, to love their chil-
dren, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home,
good, obedient to their husbands, that the word
of God be not blasphemed." (Titus, II, 4, 5.)

Of course the rules laid down by the New Tes-
tament writers on this subject are what they de-
rived from our Lord, expressing His ideas and
probably His very words.

1 8 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

The tender love which should characterize the
relation is laid down in the rule : "So ought men
to love their wives as their own bodies. He that
loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever
yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cher-
isheth it, even as the Lord the church." (Ephes-
ians, V, 28, 29.)

Such is the biblical, the religious, the divine
view of this fundamental relation of society. An
acceptance of it, as the working rule in the do-
mestic circle, solves at once most of the questions
which can arise. The authority is fixed, definitely
vested in the husband, giving him the legal and
the moral right to control. There is no attempt
at an equal division of authority in this matter.
That would only lead to domestic discord. It is
the right of the husband to command, and the
duty of the wife to obey.

This divine view is fully carried out in the
religious ceremony of the church when a marriage
is celebrated. This ceremony is not a mere form ;
it is the formation of a contract to last for life;
and, in making it, these vitally important features
are provided for, and covered.

The parties appear before the officiating clergy-
man. Each is asked if he or she will take the
other as husband or wife. The questions contain
the substance of the contract, and beautifully de-
fine the duties of each.

The husband is asked: "Wilt thou have this
woman to be thy wedded wife, to live together

HUSBAND AND WIFE 19

after God's ordinance in the holy estate of matri-
mony? Wilt them love her, comfort her, honor
and keep her, in sickness and in health; and, for-
saking all others, keep thee only unto her, so
long as ye both shall live?"

The husband when he says "I will" makes this
a solemn agreement and stipulation on his part.

Leaving out the agreements which are common
to both parties, the essential features of the re-
lation are sharply brought out in the special agree-
ments of each:

The husband promises specially to comfort his
wife.

The wife promises specially to obey and serve
her husband.

If the parties do not mean to keep these con-
tracts, they should not make them. After the
wife has promised to obey and serve her husband
she has no right to raise any question afterward
on this point. The matter was settled at the
altar.

Then comes a very significant part of the cere-
mony. The clergyman asks: "Who giveth this
woman to be married to this man?" What a
vista of the customs, the traditions, the laws, and
the usages of ages is opened up by this inquiry!
Who giveth this woman to be married to this
man? The woman, of course, belongs to some
man, most naturally her father, or, in his stead,
her brother, or some other of the male members
of the family. This person, representing the family

20 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

to which the bride has up to this time belonged,
rises and says that he gives her away. The bride
is thus legally transferred from her father's family
to her husband's family. Her name hitherto has
been that which she derived, as a matter of law,
from her father. It now becomes that of her
husband. The one name is changed for the other.
Ignorance is displayed when the bride drops one
of the names given her in baptism, keeps her
father's name, and adds to it the surname of her
husband, or adds her husband's surname to all her
own names. She ought to know that the fixed
parts of her name are those given her at baptism,
— that is, her Christian name, — and that her
family name came to her of necessity from her
father. When she marries, therefore, this sur-
name changes by a like process of law, and be-
comes the name of her husband.

Then follows in the marriage ceremony a sol-
emn reaffirmation of the agreements as contained
in the answers to the minister's questions, in
nearly the same words as before used, the wife
again promising to obey.

After this comes a part too technical to be
understood by all. The husband says: "With all
my worldly goods I thee endow."

This means, not that the husband then and
there divests himself of all his property, nor that
after the ceremony he is going to sign a deed
turning over his property to his wife, but that he
gives her a dower interest in his land, — that is,

HUSBAND AND WIFE 21

the right to a third of all his real estate for her
life, if she survive him. The word "goods" means
land, and the word "endow" means to give a
dower interest in the land. The ancient way of
designating all a man's worldly possessions was
to call them his "goods and chattels"; "goods"
means what we now call real estate, "chattels"
originally meant cattle, and later was used to de-
scribe all his movable property, — that is, his per-
sonal property, as we now call it.

These words of the marriage service have been
very generally misunderstood. The people who
hear them do not know their meaning. The
words "goods" and "endow," as we see, are tech-
nical. The ceremony accomplished in law exactly
what those words meant in law. But the untech-
nical audiences which hear them think that they
mean that the husband gives, or says he gives, and
therefore should give, all his property to his wife.
These words, therefore, have done their part in
unsettling the mind of the public in regard to the
relations which should subsist 'between husband
and wife, and might well 'be converted into more
modern terms better understood.

"I give you a dower interest in such land as I
now own, or may hereafter acquire" is what the
words really mean, and this is their exact legal
effect.

A great deal of legal history is involved in this
portion of the marriage ceremony, which is thus
explained: "No woman can claim dower unless

22 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

she has been endowed at the church door. That
is Bracton's rule, and it is well borne out by the
case law of his time. The woman's marriage may
be an indisputable marriage, but she is to have
no dower if she was not endowed at the church
door. We soon see, however, that what our
justices are demanding is, not a religious rite, nor
the presence of an ordained clergyman, but pub-
licity. We see this very plainly when Bracton tells
us that the endowment can and must be made at
the church door, even during an interdict when the
bridal mass cannot be celebrated. It is usual to
go to church when one is married; all decent per-
sons do this, and all persons are required to do
it by ecclesiastical law. The temporal law seizes
hold of this fact. Marriages contracted else-
where may be valid enough, but only at the church
door can a bride be endowed. There is a special
reason for this requirement. The common con-
trast to the church door marriage is the death-bed
marriage. At the instance of the priest, and with
the fear of death before him, the sinner makes
an honest woman of his mistress. This may do well
enough for the church, and may, one hopes, profit
his soul in another world, but it must give no
rights in English soil. The justices who demanded
an endowment at the church door were the justices
who set their faces against testamentary gifts of
land, and strenuously endeavored to make livery
of seisin mean a real change of possession. The
acts which give rights in land should be public,

HUSBAND AND WIFE 23

notorious acts." (Pollock and Maitland's "His-
tory of English Law," Vol. II, p. 372.)

"God's holy ordinance," according to which
the consorts agree to live, is the body of rules on
this subject that are laid down in the Bible, and
which we have collected at the beginning of this
chapter.

The whole ceremony, as expressed in one of
the concluding prayers, is a "vow and covenant be-
twixt them made," and each has the right to expect
and require that the other will observe it.

Alas! they are too often not observed, and
the present demoralization in this fundamental
relation follows.

In justice to the women, we would like to say
that we believe the cause of the present disordered
condition of marriage does not lie so much with
them personally as with the system under which
they find themselves living. It is a part of human
nature to desire to do what is expected of us,
to be in the fashion, and to conform to the
accepted standard. Women certainly are not un-
affected by this tendency.

Now, the point is this: If the established rule
of society be that the women are to be dutiful and
obedient wives, they will try to be so. It is the
road to peace and happiness, and if this be what
is universally expected of them, they would, in the
vast majority of cases, try their best to con-
form to it. If, however, fostered by unwise
legislation, and endlessly discussed in novels,

24 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

newspapers, magazines, on the stage, and
in societies, the claim be made that it is
a wife's duty to assert herself, to try to have
her own way in everything, to claim to be
the head of the home, to restrict her husband's
sphere of authority to a dreary office, and so on,
she will proceed, to the best of her ability, to do
that. The same woman who would, under one
standard set up by society, be a good wife, may,
under another standard, be a very bad one. The
standard should be correct. If it be so, the world
as a whole will move smoothly, — that is, as
smoothly as frail human nature, with its insatiable
desires, fickleness, and follies, will let it.

If the standard be a wrong one, it should be
corrected; and the way to correct it is to change
the law on the subject. Law has the tendency,
sooner or later, to affect all standards. We have
changed, and nearly broken to pieces, the laws and
customs of our ancestors in this matter; and the
sooner they are mended and reestablished the
better.

CHAPTER II

In studying the construction of society in the
past and present, we find that there has been in
very recent years, especially in this country, a re-
markable tendency to pass laws which lessen the
importance, rights, privileges, and powers of hus-
bands. In order to appreciate the nature and the
extent of this change, a few pages will suffice to
show what some of their rights were in the past;
then there will be presented by contrast how the
legislation of this State, in common with most of
the other American States, has diminished them
in the present.

The ancient construction put upon this relation
was in harmony with the Biblical rules on the sub-
ject. In very early times the powers of the hus-
band and father, in his domestic circle, were prac-
tically without limit. An enumeration of them is
given later in the chapter on Father and Child.
These powers of the husband applied to both the
wife's person and property. The illustrations of
this power there given are taken mainly from
Roman law, as being the most striking, and as
being the oldest jurisprudence, except the Hebrew,
with which the writer is somewhat familiar. Al-
though the doctrines there stated may have been

25

26 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

modified in certain particulars by the ancient
Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, they will serve as a
general presentation of it, as will be seen by read-
ing Pollock and Maitland's "History of English
Law," on the subjects of "Marriage" and "Hus-
band and Wife," Vol. II, pp. 362-434.

With reference to property rights between hus-
band and wife, under what is technically known as
the Common Law, — that is, the general rules and
customs of law applying to England, which is the
law in Virginia, except when changed by an act of
the Legislature, — we quote from the above work,
Vol. II, p. 401 :

"In the lands of which the wife is tenant in
fee, whether they belonged to her at the date of
the marriage or came to her during the marriage,
the husband has an estate which will endure dur-
ing the marriage, and this he can alienate without
her concurrence. If a child is born of the marri-
age, thenceforth the husband as 'tenant by the
curtesy' has an estate which will endure for the
whole of his life, and this he can alienate without
the wife's concurrence. The husband by himself
has no greater power of alienation than is here
stated, he cannot confer an estate which will en-
dure after the end of the marriage, or, as the
case may be, after his own death. The wife has
during the marriage no power to alienate her land
without her husband's concurrence. The only
process whereby the fee can be alienated is a
'fine,' to which both husband and wife are parties,

HUSBAND AND WIFE 27

and to which she gives her assent after a separate
examination.

"A widow is entitled to enjoy for 'her life under
the name of dower one-third of any land of which
the husband was seized in fee at any time during
the marriage. The result of this is that during
the marriage the husband cannot alienate his own
land so as to bar his wife's right of dower, un-
less this is done with her concurrence, and her con-
currence is ineffectual unless the conveyance is
made by 'fine.'

"Our law institutes no community even of mov-
ables between husband and wife. Whatever mov-
ables the wife has at the date of the marriage be-
comes the husband's, and the husband is entitled
to take possession of, and thereby to make his
own, whatever movables she becomes entitled to
during the marriage, and without her concurrence
he can sue for all debts that are due to her. On
his death, however, she becomes entitled to all
movables and debts that are outstanding, that
have not been 'reduced into possession.7 What
the husband gets possession of is simply his; he
can freely dispose of it inter vivos, or by will.
In the main for this purpose a 'term' of years is
treated as a chattel, but under an exceptional rule
the husband, though he can alienate his wife's
'chattel real' inter vivos, it will be hers if she
survives him. If he survives her, he is entitled
to her 'chattels real,' and is also entitled to be
made the administrator of her estate. In that

28 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

capacity he is entitled to whatever movables or
debts that have not yet been 'reduced into posses-
sion,' and, when debts have been paid, he is en-
titled to these as his own. If she dies in his
lifetime, she can have no other intestate suc-
cessor. Without 'his consent she can make no will,
and any consent that he may have given is revoc-
able at any time before the will is proved.

"Our common law, — but we have seen that this
rule is not very old, — assured no share of the
husband's personalty to the widow. He can even
by his will give all of it away from her except her
necessary clothes, and with that exception his
creditors can take all of it. A further exception,
of which there is not much read, is made of jewels,
trinkets, and ornaments of the person, under the
name of paraphernalia. The husband may sell
or give these away in his lifetime, and even after
his death they may be taken for 'his debts; but
he cannot give them away by will. If a husband
dies during the wife's life and dies intestate, she
is entitled to. a third, or if there be no living
descendants of the husband, to one-half of his
personalty. But this is a case of pure intestate
succession; she only has a share of what is left
after payment of her husband's debts.

"During the marriage the husband is in effect
liable to the whole extent of his property for debts
incurred or wrongs committed by his wife before
the marriage, also for wrongs committed during
the marriage. The action is against him, and not

HUSBAND AND WIFE 29

her, as co-defendant. If the marriage is dissolved
by his deaith, she is liable, his estate is not. If
the marriage is dissolved by her death, he is
liable as her administrator, but only to the extent
of the property that he takes in that character.

"During the marriage the wife cannot contract
on her own behalf. She can contract as her hus-
band's agent, and has a certain power of pledging
his credit in the purchase of necessaries. At the
end of the middle ages, it is very doubtful how far
this power is to be explained by an 'implied
agency.' The tendency of more recent times has
been to allow her no power that cannot be thus
explained, except in the exceptional case of de-
sertion."

Such was the body of rules on this subject which
existed in Virginia, and which would have con-
tinued to be the law to this day but for legis-
lative changes more or less recent.

Roughly summarized, the law was that the
husband was bound to the extent of his
resources to support his wife; and that, partly
as compensation and aid to him in discharg-
ing this obligation, and partly as his right as head
of the family, 'he owned her personal property,
and had the use of her real estate during the mar-
riage, and for the rest of his life, if they had
children. If there were special reasons to dis-
trust the husband's ability to manage property, or
if he were heavily indebted and it were thought
desirable to prevent his owning his wife's prop-

3o SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

erty, by means of a specially created equitable sep-
arate estate this was accomplished.

The men of the great State of Texas have had
the virility to adhere to the Common Law of Eng-
land in regard to all these matters of property
rights as between them and their wives. Of
course their doing so is now attacked furiously by
the women; but if they stand firm, they will con-
tinue to occupy a position in all these domestic
affairs greatly above that held by the men of Vir-
ginia, and infinitely superior to that of the men
in the States where women are put on an equality
with men.

Let us see what the Legislature of Virginia has
done with these rules, and in what position they
have finally placed all the husbands in the State.

Section 2286 A of the Code now provides as
follows :

"A married woman shall have the right to
acquire, hold, use, control, and dispose of prop-
erty as if she were unmarried, and such power
of use, control, and disposition shall apply to all
property of a married woman heretofore or here-
after acquired; provided, however, that her hus-
band shall be entitled to curtesy in her real estate
when the common law requisites therefor exist;
and he shall not be deprived thereof by her sole
act; but the right to curtesy shall not entitle him
to the possession or use, or to the rents, issues,
and profits, of said real estate during the cover-
ture ; nor shall the property of the wife be subject

HUSBAND AND WIFE 31

to the debts or liabilities of the 'husband. A mar-
ried woman may contract and be contracted with,
sue and be sued, in the same manner and with the
same consequences as if she were unmarried,
whether the right or liability asserted by or against
her shall have accrued before or after the pas-
sage of this act. A husband shall not be respons-
ible for any contract, liability, or tort of his wife,
whether the contract or liability was incurred or
the tort was committed before or after the mar-
riage." (Acts 1899-1900, p. 1240.)

When a married woman is a minor neither her
father nor her husband is to have any control
over her property, but her estate is committed to a
"receiver" by an order of court. Section 2291
provides in this double emergency the following
legislative gem:

"When a woman is a minor at the time of her
marriage, and is then entitled to any estate, or
during her coverture, and while a minor, becomes
entitled to any estate, she shall not during the
coverture, and while a minor, have the control and
management of such estate ; but the circuit court of
the county, or the circuit or corporation court of
the corporation wherein she resides, or the said
real estate, or any part thereof is, or the judge
of the said court in vacation, shall, on the petition
of her next friend commit her said estate to a re-
ceiver, who shall give bond before the court or
judge, and shall hold and manage the said estate,
and pay out the rents, issues, profits, and income

32 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

thereof to her use under the direction of the
court, or apply the estate, or any part thereof,
if the court so order, to her use during
coverture, and while she is a minor; and upon her
attaining the age of twenty-one years, all such
estates and the rents, issues, income, and profits
thereof, not paid out or applied as aforesaid,
shall be delivered into her possession; or, if she
die before attaining that age, the same shall be
delivered at her death to those entitled thereto.

"The seisin requisite for the husband's curtesy
in the wife's real estate, committed to a receiver
shall, for the purpose of curtesy, be presumed, if
there could have been such seisin, had not the
real estate been so committed." (Acts 1899-1900,
p. 1240.)

Real estate belonging to a married woman who
is a minor may be sold by a court. Neither the
approbation of her husband nor of her father is
required. The court is presumed to take much
more interest in her welfare, and to guard care-
fully the proceeds of the sale from these danger-
ous characters by transferring it to the custody
of another receivef. (Section 2292 A; Acts
1891-2, p. 391.)

If the wife die intestate, her personal property
all passes to her husband. (Section 2557.)

If they have had no child born alive, her hus-
band has no interest in her real estate. If he
have put the house in which they lived in his
wife's name, and she die intestate, he must walk

HUSBAND AND WIFE 33

out of the house the day after the funeral, and the
property which he was so carefully guarding
against the claims of his creditors will pass in fee
simple to his wife's seventeenth cousin possibly,
or to someone else whom he has never seen, this
being the rule applying to all her property from
whomsoever derived. (Section 2548.)

If they have had a child born alive, and she
die intestate, the husband may still hold it, as
tenant by the curtesy, for the balance of his life.
His wife's heirs will then own the property.
(Section 2293.)

This would also be the case if there had been
a child who inherited the property from his
mother. At her death it would descend to the
child, subject to the curtesy of the husband; and
at the child's death, if still an infant, it would,
still, subject to the husband's curtesy, pass to the
maternal relations of the child, leaving his father
only a life interest. (Section 2556.)

These two provisions, — the one allowing the
husband to stand as the sole distributee of his
wife's personal property, that is, as to such per-
sonal property as she may not have given away to
some one else by her will ; and the other, the right,
contingent upon a child's having been born alive
during the coverture, for him to hold for his life
any real estate she may have owned during the
coverture, whether willed away by her or not, —
are about all that is now left the husband of his
interest as such in his wife's property. On the

34 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

whole, they do not amount to any more than the
wife gains in his property. So, taking all the
cases together, we may say that the husband gains
nothing financially by marriage.

We must make, however, one exception to this
broad statement: he is still legally entitled to his
wife's affections. If any one alienate these from
him, he can sue him for damages; and anything
collected in such a suit will be his individual prop-
erty.

What a strange oversight on the part of the
Legislature to let this rule stand! It mars the
beautiful symmetry of the plan which was being
so successfully worked out, — that of depriving
the husband of everything. The idea of damages
resulting from a matter due to the very marriage
itself, not being secured to the wife, even if it
were the injury that the husband had sustained
by the alienation of his wife's affections! How
could he ever have become entitled to the dam-
ages but for her marriage with him; and as she
was the cause of the damages having arisen why
should they not belong to her instead of to him?

CHAPTER III

One of the strangest things and worst conse-
quences about our system of the separate property
of married women has been the way many men have
tried to use it in order to put their money beyond
the reach of their creditors, — "In case anything
happened to them," as they express it. It is now
not only a question of giving to men a proper
interest in, and assistance from, the property of
their wives, but it is high time for men to be
stopped from putting all their own property in
their wives5 names. The ultimate effect of this
policy appears to be that all the property in the
State will eventually stand in the names of women,
and the men will be brought into unbecoming de-
pendence upon them in that regard. If protection
of property from the claims of creditors be
proper, which we do not admit, it would be bet-
ter to let a man entail his estate in a manly and
straightforward manner, as was formerly done,
instead of holding it under the trusteeship of his
wife. This puts him not only in a fraudulent,
but in a contemptible position, if such were his
object.

A beautiful case illustrating the real security
husbands get by putting their property in their
wives' names is presented to us in this case, which
we give as it was reported in the Firginian-Pilot,

35

3 6 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

of Norfolk, Virginia, on August 2, 1905, omitting
names only:

"After having worked for many years to ac-
cumulate a considerable amount of property,
which he transferred to his wife as fast as he got
it, on account of the fact that he wished to protect
her from the expense of litigation after his death
in case relatives should make any contest, and
then to find that the wife had bequeathed it all to
outsiders by a will of which he knew nothing, is
the predicament Mr. X., of Norfolk, finds him-
self in.

"Mr. and Mrs. X. had no children, and in 1883
he came to the conclusion that as Mrs. X. had
helped him by wifely counsel and sympathy to get
his money, he should take some steps to save her
from annoyance from relatives in the event of his
death before hers. Their life had been one long
honeymoon, and it was his wish that after his
death Mrs. X should live in the same comfort
and ease that she had done since he had become
wealthy again. To make sure of this he trans-
ferred to her name property to the amount of
$27,000, and afterward bought for her a fine
home at the corner of X Avenue and V Street,
which stands in the center of a spacious lawn, and
is one of the most attractive places in Norfolk.

"When he had completed this home in every
detail he deeded it to her in the same manner
that he had done the other property. In return
Mrs. X. made a will whereby all the property

HUSBAND AND WIFE 37

which had been given her by her husband was
left to him in fee simple, in case she should die
first.

aSome years ago Mr. and Mrs. X. made the
acquaintance of a Mrs. Y., who is the widow of
— Y., a brother of the great manufacturer. The
acquaintance soon ripened into a close friendship,
and Mrs. Y. was often the guest of Mr. and Mrs.
X. at their Norfolk home. The old Confederate
soldier and his wife also conceived a strong friend-
ship for the Rev. Dr. C., pastor of the

Church, of this city. There was never a word
said about devising any of the property to these
two persons, and no such thing was ever thought
of for a moment by Mr. X.

"Mrs. X. died two weeks ago, and Mrs. Y.,
who was in Chicago, heard of it and came to
Norfolk at once and went to see Mr. X. She
was received with the same open-handed, whole-
hearted hospitality that had been accorded her
during Mrs. X.'s lifetime. This woman had not
been in the house many minutes before she had
astounded Mr. X. with the information that his
wife had made a will in 1893 (ten years after the
previous will had been made) by which that gen-
tleman had been left a life interest in the property
he had transferred to his wife, and that at his
death a life interest went to Mrs. Y., with a
residuary interest to Mrs. Y.'s son. Mrs. Y.
told Mr. X. of a clause in the will which gave
that lady the power to dispose of the property by

38 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

will in any manner she wished in spite of the fact
that a residuary interest had been given to
young Y.

"He was also informed that the beautiful home
in which they had lived had been given at once
to Dr. C., the X.'s pastor. Mr. X. was stunned
by the news for an instant, and then he ordered
Mrs. Y. to leave his house forthwith, and she lost
no time in doing so.

"The old soldier took the will of 1883 to the
Clerk's office and filed it with Clerk D., who has
locked it up in his safe and is holding it for safe-
keeping. The husband has also taken steps to
prevent the later will from; being probated, and if
he fails in this, he will cause an issue devisavit
vel non to be raised, and fight it along that line.

"Mr. X. said yesterday that he and his wife had
had a beautiful home life and their relations had
always been of the most loving kind, and he did
not believe that she had ever signed such a will.
He has read a copy of the Y. will, but has not
seen the original. He will make every effort to
save the property for himself, because he does not
believe for one instant that Mrs. X. ever intended
to deprive him of it."

There you are. The husband and the acquirer
of the property, to be compelled to walk out of
his own house at once, and lose the fee simple title
to all the rest. And this is just the situation any
man is likely to find himself in who does this sort

HUSBAND AND WIFE 39

of thing. And we know another case, even sad-
der than this, when the wife herself kept her hus-
band out of property which he, in a moment of
weakness and alarm, transferred to her.

A man's only protection, in regard to real
estate, the title to which stands in his wife's name,
is the provision in Section 2286 A that the hus-
band shall not be deprived of his contingent right
of curtesy by the sole act of his wife; which
means that no deed signed only by her, without
him, shall deprive him of his contingent right to
a life interest in the same as tenant by the curtesy,
which becomes a legal estate in possession only
if they have children born alive, and he survive
her. Even this the Legislature may sweep away
at any time. As to personal property, such as
stocks, bonds, money, and so forth, he has no
protection. By her sole act his wife may dispose
of this at any time, as she may also dispose of the
ultimate fee simple title and immediate possession
of the house the husband may have put in her
name, by her sole deed, or, to his great and ever-
lasting consternation and ruin, by a will of which
he knew nothing until her death, when it would
be too late to alter it.

A joke is even made of putting property in the
wife's name: "I hear, Mike," said Pat, uthat
Flinn had his appendix taken from him." "Serves
him just right," said Mike, "for not putting it in
his wife's name."

If this sort of thing continue for a few more

40 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

generations, nearly all the property in Virginia
will belong to women. The men, for alleged
affection, but more generally for supposed protec-
tion, adopt this policy often while living. The
women, when they come to make their wills, have
a decided preference for leaving their property
to their daughters, for the unintended benefit of
their sons-in-law, instead of to their sons, for
the benefit of their daughters-in-law. The writer
has even seen a will in which the property is left
by a woman to her daughter-in-law, to the ex-
clusion of her son. The sons are held to be able,
of course, to make all the money they need; let
them work. Such property as is in the family is,
therefore, to devolve upon the daughters. The
men also, under the influence of their wives pre-
sumably, often will the best of their property to
their daughters instead of to their sons. It does
not require much effort of imagination to see what
will be the final result if this process be allowed
to go on indefinitely. The men of the State may
ultimately find themselves not only lowered in dig-
nity, but placed in financial dependence upon the
women; and then, what?

"She sifted the meal, she gimme the huss;

She baked the bread, she gimme the crus' ;
She biled the meat, she gimme the bone;

She gimme a kick and sent me home !"

Stripped of the legal title to their property,
and the power which goes with it, men need not
be surprised if they find themselves treated with

HUSBAND AND WIFE 41

the same consideration that King Lear is repre-
sented as having received at the hands of his
daughters, — Goneril and Regan.

Now, if in a moment of weakness, or of ignor-
ance, you have put your property in your wife's
name, the sooner you have it reconveyed to you,
the better for you. Your wife may die to-mor-
row, and you may find yourself subordinated in
regard to your property to the infant over there
in the cradle, or to relatives of your wife, whom
possibly you never saw nor heard of.

For fear that the husbands of Virginia might
not be sufficiently excluded from benefit in their
wives' property, to the satisfaction of everybody,
it is carefully provided that equitable separate
estates on the part of the wife may also still be
created, in which case a trustee will be interposed
between the husband and his wife. This certainly
has a tendency to make the matrimonial relation
particularly harmonious and attractive! (Section
2294.)

As a part of the plan to reduce to nothing the
interest which a husband has in his wife's prop-
erty, and to compel him to stay with her, it is pro-
vided by Section 2296 that: "If a husband wil-
fully deserts or abandons his wife, and such de-
sertion or abandonment continues until her death,
he shall be barred of all interest in her estate as
tenant by the curtesy, distributee, or otherwise."
(Acts 1899-1900, p. 1240.)

That is, for instance, if relations should become

42 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

a little strained between them, or even only ap-
peared to be so to outsiders, and the husband,
after putting all his property in his wife's name,
should leave town for a few days, and his wife
should die of heart disease, be run over by a car,
or otherwise suddenly depart this life during his
absence, he is excluded from all interest in the
property. Even if she have made a will in his
favor, it all goes for naught, and the property,
real and personal, is to go to the distant cousin
of the wife, or to whomever be her heir, legatee,
or devisee.

It is to be observed that this forfeiture of all
interest in the wife's estate is not dependent upon
her being in needy circumstances, nor does it re-
gard the source from which her property was de-
rived, nor the length nor cause of the absence, and
all these forfeitures are to be asserted by others
who would have a powerful financial reason for
making it appear that the case contemplated by
the statute had arisen, so that they could get what
should belong to the husband. This statute is
about on a par with Section 2556, in disturbing
the peace of mind of those affectionate and
cautious men who are so fond of putting their
property in their wives' names. They should com-
mit both to memory, and say them over to them-
selves at least once a day, to make sure that they
really know these rules of law, and to make them-
selves enjoy all the more the great security which
they think they possess by this scheme.

CHAPTER IV

Worse than this, though, is the provision passed
in the year of Grace, 1904, by which husbands may
not only be fined by loss of all financial interest
in their wives' property, but flung into jail for
deserting them. This statute we consider such a
model of bad legislation that it should be given
at length in the very words of the Legislature :

"Any person (that is any husband or father)
who shall, without just cause, desert or wilfully
neglect to provide for the support of his wife or
minor children, in destitute or necessitous circum-
stances, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,
and shall be punished by imprisonment in jail, not
exceeding one year; provided that before the trial
(with the consent of the defendant) or after con-
viction, instead of imposing the punishment here-
inbefore provided, or in addition thereto, the
court in its discretion, having regard to the cir-
cumstances and financial ability of the defendant,
shall have the power to enter an order, which
shall be subject to change by it from time to time
as the circumstances may require, directing the de-
fendant to pay a certain sum weekly or monthly
for the space of one year to the wife or to the
custodian of the minor, and to release the defend-

43

44 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

ant from custody on probation for the space of
one year upon his entering into a recognizance,
with or without sureties, in such sum as the court
shall direct. The condition of the recognizance
shall be such that if the defendant shall make his
personal appearance at court whenever ordered
to do so within the year, and shall further comply
with the terms of the order, or of any subsequent
modification thereof, then the recognizance shall
be void, otherwise to remain in full force and
effect. If the court be satisfied by information
and due proof under oath at any time during the
year that the defendant has violated the terms of
such order, it may forthwith proceed to the trial
of the defendant under the original indictment, or
sentence him under the original conviction, as the
case may be. In the case of forfeiture of a recog-
nizance and enforcement hereof by execution, the
sum recovered may, in the discretion of the court,
be paid in whole or in part to the wife or to
the custodian of the minor. The corporation or
hustings courts of the cities and the circuit courts
of the counties, respectively, shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction of all prosecutions and pro-
ceedings under this Act." (Acts 1904, p. 208.)

This enactment is the companion piece and fore-
runner of the more recent act of legislation, noted
later in a chapter in Part II on "Parent and
Child," putting the parent in jail for not supplying
the child with food, and so on. (Acts 1910, p.
570-)

HUSBAND AND WIFE 45

These acts are nothing more or less than insults
to the men of a race which, since the dawn of
its history, has supported its wives and its children
to the best of its ability. Aimed presumably at a
few real offenders, who may be morally repre-
hensible for their neglect or failure to discharge
their obligations to their families, the inevitable
result of this legislation is to degrade the relation
of husband and father to the lowest level of
dignity and authority which the world has ever
seen. Are the men of Virginia, and of other
States of the American Union, going to submit
indefinitely to, or extend, a system which degrades
them in their family relations to a condition lower
than that occupied by any other men in the world?
and which places the policeman, the sheriff, and
the jailer in their family circle, ready, at the com-
mand of the wife, on the charge of non-support,
to arrest and imprison the head of the family?
This legislation leaves no opportunity for the hus-
band and father to discharge these obligations be-
cause it is his natural right and duty to do so, and
because it is his pleasure to do so, but he now dis-
charges them, if for no higher reason, because
he must do so. He must do so, or go to jail.
The courts are here again made the custodians and
regulators of all the family affairs. Over the head
of all husbands and fathers hangs the sword of
Damocles, in the powers of these courts, so ig-
nominiously provided against the men of the State
by the Legislature. This policy appears to be

46 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

so humiliating to the men of our race, the whole
conception so subversive of the proper relation
of husband and wife, and of father and child,
that it should be reversed at once, before it has
had time to ruin the domestic relations beyond the
hope of recall.

It seems that the State of New Jersey has a
statute similar to ours, or more probably, with our
zeal for legislative plagiarism, we may have simply
copied theirs. An edifying spectacle is presented
in the following case, which was recorded by the
New York World, on August 29, 1905, coming
under this statute. The newspaper account of it
was as follows:

"Jersey City, N. J., August 29. — What dispo-
sition A. B. makes of five cents a week is the
question that is agitating Jersey City. He admits
that he spends it, and his wife, who had him ar-
rested for non-support, agrees with him; but what
Jersey City desires to know is just how B. expends
his portion of the money for which he works.

"Over the back fences, where the women swap
experiences and tell of the home-comings of the
head of the house, with more than a white man's
burden that cost a week's salary, and discuss the
prodigality of man, B. is an object of curiosity.

"Something in B.'s manner impressed Mrs. B. a

few days ago that he was going to balk at giving

up $32.40 on his pay-day, so she left her home

at 415 H. Street, and obtained a warrant for his

arrest for non-support.

HUSBAND AND WIFE - 47

"Yesterday B. was dragged to court before
Justice H.

'You are charged with non-support/ said the
justice.

" 'It is untrue, your honor. I make $65 a
month, and I get paid every two weeks, and I
give my wife $32.40, and keep ten cents for my-
self.'

"Is that true?' asked the justice.
'Yes,' said the wife. 'You see, my husband
was paid last Saturday and I was afraid he would
not give me my share of the money, and so I had
a warrant issued for him on Friday.'

' 'Did he give it to you?' inquired the justice.

"Oh, yes; but I forgot to tell the officer to
withdraw the warrant, and so it was served,' re-
plied the wife."

As severely as the record shows that Job was
tried, he was never called upon to bear anything
quite so exasperating as this. Who could be much
surprised if he heard that the next act in that
drama were a divorce, a suicide, or even a mur-
der? These crimes have been often committed
under less provocation.

Here is another illustration of the working of
this kind of legislation:

"Philadelphia, Pa., December 14, 1911. — Mrs.
C., forty-five years old, was told she had no stand-
ing in court after she had caused the arrest of her
husband, whom she left twenty-four years ago on a

48 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

charge of desertion and non-support. Husband
and wife had not seen each other since except
once, shortly after the separation, when C. was
arrested on the complaint of his wife on a similar
charge. In that case it was proved the wife was
in the wrong.

"Since the desertion C. has prospered. When he
faced his wife he had to look at her several times
before he recognized her."

And right here at home we have :

"Y. Z. pleaded guilty yesterday in the Norfolk
County Circuit Court to a charge of deserting his
wife. A verdict of six months in the county jail
was returned by the jury."

"The case of B., charged with desertion,
was called yesterday in the Norfolk County Cir-
cuit Court, but was continued. B. is a fugitive."
j

It is likely that others will do well to follow B.'s
example, for not long after his hejira the follow-
ing program for establishing domestic peace and
happiness was promulgated:

uAt the meeting of those interested in the work-
ings of the Juvenile and Domestic Court, held yes-
terday in the Police Court, Justice B. signified his
intention of making it exceedingly warm for the
wife-deserters and those who fail to support their
families, and are brought before him.

"Instead of fining them as has been the case in

HUSBAND AND WIFE 49

most instances heretofore, those who merit pun-
ishment will be sent to jail for two or three days,
or for longer sentences in the more aggravated
cases. In a great many instances after a man has
been fined for non-support, his wife, being too
loyal to him to let him go to jail, has had to pay
his fine when she really needed the money badly
for household purposes, and it is thought that the
new method of jailing the offenders will settle the
question more satisfactorily.

"There were quite a large number of ministers
of both the white and the colored churches present
at yesterday's meeting, together with representa-
tives from various organizations interested in the
juvenile and domestic situation, and all pledged
their support to the magistrate in helping to pre-
vent a large number of children being brought
into court.

"It was decided that in each instance where
children enter into the cases an investigation into
the home-life of the youngsters will be made ; and
where it is found that the influence surrounding
the bringing up of the child is such that would tend
to demoralize it, the ^parent will be held respons-
ible and be made to bear the punishment for the
child's wrong-doing."

The wives were "too loyal" to their husbands !
So the State drives a wedge between them, and
holds that "the method of jailing the offenders
will settle the question more satisfactorily."

We will suppose that the husband has been duly

50 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

"jailed," and, after a certain time, comes out.
Where will he go? Dinner-time comes, and we
will stretch our imagination to the point of seeing
the husband overcome his repugnance to ever
entering the house, or seeing his wife again, and
behold him sitting down at table with his family.
Across the board sits his wife, she who has had
him put in jail. She faces him, her mind full of
what she has done, his mind full of what she
has done. What topic of conversation could be
found but the one which was boiling in the heart
of each?

Are not such situations as this among those
dreadful antecedents of the awful tragedies which
we read of so often, where some man, exasper-
ated beyond the limit of endurance, slaughters his
wife and his children, and then kills himself over
their dead bodies?

Far be it from the writer to be understood as
counseling or condoning any such course. The
trials of the husband should be endured with forti-
tude, and all the teachings of morality, virtue, and
religion unite to lead him to repentance and a
better course of life. We are here merely ana-
lyzing the situation, and probing into the causes of
the awful scenes which are related to us so often.
And here, let us say, that the real cause, — do-
mestic anarchy, — is never given in the newspaper
accounts. All is attributed to sudden fits of men-
tal aberration. Persons never regarded in the
least as insane are always so reported when these

HUSBAND AND WIFE 51

tragedies occur. The policy which has been adopted
by society in regard to these domestic matters
seems, for the time being, to blind the eyes of
the public to the real cause, or to make it un-
willing to face the ghastly fact that this modern
movement is fatally wrong, and is proving itself
to be a dreadful failure.

It would seem that the indefiniteness of the
word "support" would be of itself a sufficient ob-
jection to this legislation. What is a support?
How much money must the husband earn, and
use in the support of his family, not to render
himself likely to be put in jail on the ground of
wilfully neglecting to provide for the support of
his wife or minor children? Poor people are ac-
customed to live on incomes which richer persons
would deem wholly insufficient. Would not the
daughter of a rich family feel that she had the
right to put her husband in jail if he only sup-
plied the sums which poorer people were accus-
tomed to live on, even if this were the best that
he could do? Why would not a servant girl
have a right to put her husband in jail for not
supporting her in the style her mistress lives in?
Why should not every wife, ultimately, have the
right to demand that she be supported in the best
style known in that community? And what is
the reason she is not so supported but the fact
that her worthless husband does not make as
much money as somebody else's husband makes?
And such being the case, why should not all the

52 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

unfortunate, the incapable, and the weak hus-
bands be put in jail together for not being rich,
strong, and successful? It is their fault of course,
and theirs only, that their families do not live just
as well as anybody else. What a fruitful source
of dissatisfaction as to the state of life in which
their lots are cast is here opened up ! The par-
ties married "for better for worse, for richer for
poorer." But if it turned out that their fate is
worse and poorer, who is to blame but the hus-
band? and if he be to blame, why not have him
punished?

Then again, what are the "just causes" which
will sanction the desertion or wilful neglect to
provide for the support of one's wife or minor
children in destitute or necessitous circumstances?
An enumeration of these would be truly a diffi-
cult task. We look for them in the act, but they
are not to be found.

Not satisfied with the legislation already in
force, which is open to the just criticism above
made, the Legislature of 1912 adds the follow-
ing provision, amending a previous enactment,
making it apply to all cities having over fifteen
thousand inhabitants :

"It shall be the duty of the chief of police or
the probation officer hereinafter provided for in
any city of the State having fifteen thousand in-
habitants and over, when in his opinion a person
in his jurisdiction is a confirmed drunkard, or is
guilty of failure to support his family, to admon-

HUSBAND AND WIFE 53

ish said person; and if, after said admonition,
there is not amendment, to bring such person be-
fore the court charged with being an habitual
drunkard, or with failing to support his family,
as the case may be.

"That whenever any person is brought before
the judge of any court or any police justice in
any city of this State, charged with being an ha-
bitual drunkard, or with failing to support his
wife or children, and satisfactory evidence is pro-
duced that such person is guilty of the offense
charged, or is such person as above described,
such judge or police justice may, in his discre-
tion, continue the case for final determination
to some later day, to be fixed by him, and bail
the accused for his appearance on such day, with
or without security, and the said judge or police
justice may commit the said person to the super-
vision of the chief of police or of an officer known
as probation officer whose appointment is here-
inafter provided for, under such directions, rules,
and regulations as the said judge or police justice
may give, direct, and prescribe.

"The said judge or police justice of any city
in this State may, on the recommendation of the
State board of charities and corrections, designate
some discreet and proper person, either constable
or police officer of said city, as he may think
proper, to be known as the probation officer of
such city. The compensation of said probation
officer shall be prescribed by the city council, and

54 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

in all cases shall be paid out of the treasury of
the city for which he is appointed. Where no
such appointment is made, the chief of police shall
be, and he is hereby, authorized and required
to act as said probation officer.

"The said probation officer shall ascertain the
name and address and such facts in relation to the
antecedent history and environment of the person
or persons committed to 'his charge as may enable
him to determine what corrective measures will be
proper in the case, and shall exercise a constant
supervision over the conduct of such person or
persons, and make report to the judge or police
justice, whenever he shall deem it necessary, or be
required to do so, and he shall use every effort
to encourage and stimulate such person to a refor-
mation. Whenever said chief of police or pro-
bation officer shall become satisfied that such per-
son is violating the directions, rules, and regula-
tions, given or prescribed by the judge or police
justice, as the case may be, for his conduct, said
chief of police or probation officer shall have
authority to arrest such person without warrant
and carry him before the judge or police justice
before whom he was first brought, or some other
judge or police justice acting in said city; and
such judge or police justice may, in his discretion,
declare the recognizance forfeited, or, in hjs dis-
cretion, extend the time of probation under like
conditions as are above described. Every proba-
£ion officer appointed as aforesaid is hereby in-

HUSBAND AND WIFE 55

vested with all powers and authority of a police
officer or of a constable while in the discharge
of his duties.

"A man who, after having been placed under
the probation officer for non-support, still de-
clines to provide for his family, or who while
under the probation officer leaves the city, shall be
apprehended and, upon conviction, sentenced to
the State convict road force until such time as he
shall agree to support his family, when he shall
be returned to the city, and placed under a pro-
bation officer as before. A man under the pro-
bation officer as a drunkard who, after being so
placed, continues to drink, shall be sentenced to
the said road force, where he shall remain until
he gives evidence satisfactory to the superintend-
ent of the penitentiary and the sergeant of the
camp in which he works that he has reformed,
when he shall be discharged from the camp, but
shall continue in the custody of the probation
officer of the city in which he has residence, until
discharged by the court.

"Drunkards committed to the convict road
force shall be dealt with in all respects as other
prisoners except, first, they shall not, unless as
punishment for attempt to escape, foe compelled
to wear the chain; second, they shall be examined
upon their entrance into the camp by the physi-
cian, and said physician shall report the result of
said examination to the sergeant in charge of tbe
camp, with the view of enabling the said ser-

56 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

geant to give to the said drunkard such work
as will not do the said drunkard physical harm.

uln the event that the cities of the State or
any of them should establish workhouses or city
farms on which prisoners are put to work, per-
sons convicted of non-support or declared to be
confirmed drunkards, under the provisions of this
act, may be committed to said farms or work-
houses instead of to the convict road force.

"In the event that the cities of the State or
any of them should establish said workhouses or
city farms, persons addicted to any drug habit
may be placed on probation and committed to said
farms intsead of to the jails.

"All probation officers shall report to the State
board of charities and corrections. The form of
such report shall be prescribed by the said board.

"All acts and parts of acts in conflict wkh this
act are 'hereby repealed." (Acts 1912, p. 396.)

Under this enlightened legislation a man who
fails in business (or who from sickness, or bodily
or mental infirmity, or the sickness of his wife
or children, or from the loss of his position, or
on account of the general expense of living, or
from any of the other casualties of life, loses
his property, and is unable to support his family)
may, after having been placed under the power
of this "probation officer," and being still un-
able to do what is demanded of him by this law,
be condemned, and, loaded with an iron chain,

HUSBAND AND WIFE 57

and guarded by men with rifles in their hands, be
forced to work upon the public roads.

Your life and liberty are placed by this act
in the hands of a judge or police justice, and of
this probation officer, possibly some ward poli-
tician, who is to "determine what corrective meas-
ures will be proper in the case," — matters which,
regulating the liberty of action of all our citizens
as they do, are of such high importance that they
have been heretofore most carefully guarded by
the highest constitutional provisions, and regu-
lated and defined in the clearest way by the laws
which were to be administered and applied by a
judge and jury, sworn to decide the case imparti-
ally.

Judges are, by this act, authorized to com-
mit you to this officer, or to the chief of police,
"under such directions, rules, and regulations as
the said judge or police justice may give, direct,
and prescribe." That is, the judiciary is practi-
cally given powers of legislation, a matter which
has been most carefully restricted to another co-
ordinate branch of government, — the Legislature.
Every offense should have a definite description
and a definite punishment, not one arbitrarily
laid down by a judge or police justice. Such a
power is the grossest tyranny, and a flagrant
violation of our principles of government.

No defense, except that of not having failed
to support your wife or family, would be able
to be set up against a prosecution under this act,

58 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

as the statute makes no qualification, nor recog-
nizes any grounds of palliation. That it was
your wife herself who ruined you, and spent your
last dollar, would be no defense. If, for any
cause, the poor wretch be guilty of "failure to
support his family," he stands condemned. Some
persons are not able to support themselves, to
say nothing of supporting a family. Some have
extravagant wives.

No exception is made even in the case of the
wife or the children that have property of their
own. They are not required to exhaust this be-
fore imprisoning the head of the family. If you
occupy this position, whether the family be small
or large, healthy or sickly, and fail to support the
members of it, to the roads you go, with your
chain clanking about you. No age limits are
recognized. The white-haired father, bowed
down with years, may be condemned for not sup-
porting able-bodied members of his family, male
and female. No faithful performance of cor-
responding duties on their part to him is required
to be proved before the wife of his bosom, or
his offspring, may cause the poor man to be dealt
with as a common malefactor, on the ground that
he 'has failed to support them. They may have
treated him like a dog. That makes no differ-
ence. To the roads he goes.

It was before the passage of this act even that
we have heard sung upon the stage a song which
acquires steadily a deeper and deeper meaning:

HUSBAND AND WIFE 59

"Lord! have mercy on a married man!"

The obvious way to secure this mercy is for
men, married and single, to come to their senses,
and repeal these recent unwise acts of legislation.
So long as they remain they are the law, and the
courts will have to enforce them.

The record of the last Legislature shows that
this act was one approved along with others that
same day, which cover one hundred and sixty
pages of closely printed matter. Statute law is
the most difficult, tiresome, and involved writing
one is often called upon to read. It is hard to
see how all this mass received the considera-
tion it deserved at the hands of the governor who
approved it. And it is more than doubtful if it
were ever given the consideration anywhere that
it deserved. Yet it is now the law; and will so
remain until some one in the Legislature have the
courage to propose its repeal.

It is no answer to these objections to say that
one's wife, or the judge, or the police justice, or
the probation officer, or the chief of police, would
never think of applying this law in a way which
would work the injustice which is here pointed out
as possible. The liberty of the citizens of the
Commonwealth ought not to be put at the mercy,
or in the discretionary power, of any one. Under
this law every unfortunate 'husband or father
enjoys his liberty, not under the constitution and
laws of the land, but under the sufferance of his
wife and the officers enumerated. When they

60 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

think he should go in chains to work on the pub-
lic roads, he must go. A more humiliating posi-
tion it would be hard to imagine for the men of a
free and powerful Commonwealth to occupy.
Under this system a man's wife may become, not
the object of his love and attention, but of terror.

Under this statute the following case arose
a few days ago in this city; and was partly thus
reported in the daily paper :

"That a quarrel between husband and wife does
not justify the man in deserting his home and
failing to provide for the support of his wife
was clearly defined by Judge A. R. H. in the
Corporation Court yesterday.

UX. was on trial for wife desertion, when this
question arose.

"The jury rendered a verdict of guilty. X. will
be required to furnish maintenance for his wife."

The situation presented by this case should
afford food for thought even for the Legislature
and the governor, who are responsible for the
law under which it arose.

Civil war breaks out in the domestic circle, — the
husband, commander-in-chief on one side; his wife
on the other. Skirmishes, battles, and campaigns
follow. The bird of victory perches finally upon
the banner of the wife. The husband is overcome,
and driven from the disputed territory, the family
hearth and rooftree. Many other such wars have
terminated in the murder of one and the suicide
of the other. Here the husband, more sensibly,

HUSBAND AND WIFE 61

i •?•»

merely withdraws. The place is no home for
him. He has had enough, and leaves. He will have
no more to do with such an establishment, and
withholds his contribution to the support of a
house not conducted according to his views, and
where his wishes are not regarded. He is there-
upon arrested, brought into court a prisoner, and
placed before the judge and jury. He is charged,
not with murder, highway robery, arson, nor burg-
lary, but with not supporting a woman with whom
he has found it impossible to live in peace and
quietness.

The instructions given by the judge to the jury,
as appears by the record of the case, were as
follows :

"The Court instructs the jury that a quarrel
between Mr. and Mrs. — furnishes no defense
to the claim against him for non-support, and if
the jury believe from the evidence that the de-
fendant has failed and is failing to provide a rea-
sonable support for his said wife they should find
him guilty, unless the jury believe from the evi-
dence that Mrs. — refused and still refuses to go
to live with Mr. — at a reasonably suitable house
that was offered by him to her."

The specific charge on which the husband was
arrested was that on a certain day he did "un-
lawfully desert the said Mrs. — , his lawful
wedded wife, and refused to contribute to her
support."

Under these instructions, which merely pre-

62 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

sent the law of Virginia which applies to every
husband in the State, the only defense which it
would be permitted the wretched man to make
was the right of proving that his wife had re-
fused, and still refused, to live with him at a rea-
sonably suitable house provided for her by him.
No investigation into the merits of the contro-
versy between them, or as to who was respons-
ible for it, would have been allowed. No require-
ment would have been held to exist on the part of
the wife to show that she had performed her
wifely duties to her husband before she could
thus (for failure to discharge his duty to her)
have him hauled into court to be condemned ig-
nominiously to work in chains upon the public
roads. No; all such matters would have been
ruled out as irrelevant. Under this law, con-
quered and driven from home, the husband must
yet support the establishment he is unwilling to
live in.

Suppose he were to come back. There sits
his triumphant antagonist, flushed with victory,
in full possession of the field of battle, which once
had borne the name of home, and with the power
of the Commonwealth on her side compelling
him to support her, or suffer the penalty. And
all this on account of a woman who may have
been recreant to every duty she owed him. What
satisfaction could he possibly have, after these
scenes, in living again with her? But whether he
choose to live with her or not, in the matter of

HUSBAND AND WIFE 63

support, it is all the same to her. Possibly a wife
might much prefer her husband's not living with
her, and might get up such a quarrel for the pur-
pose of driving him away. All the same she must
be supported by him. The only defense he can
have against such a prosecution is for -her to be
unwilling to come to the place he provides for
her, supposing it to be "reasonably suitable."
This term is vague enough to bring on another
civil war, if she be still so disposed. No matter
what may be the lodgings the poor creature may
think are the best he is financially able to provide,
she could at once raise the point that they were
not suitable.

In his distress a husband so situated has to
choose between living with his conqueror in the
house she then is, or in some other, or of incur-
ring the additional expense of a separate estab-
lishment for himself, or of being condemned to
the public roads.

What standard of action and duty on the part
of the wives is set up by such a law, and by such
proceedings as these? None. Under this law
every wife in Virginia can, if she choose, make
herself unbearable to her husband, and drive
him from his home, and even do this thing on
purpose, without incurring any penalty whatever
therefor. All she has to do in order to keep her
husband under obligation to support her, with the
threat of the law over him, is to be willing to live
in the same house with him, no matter what the

64 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

personal relations between them may be. The
words "reasonably suitable" would be held to
mean suitable to the woman, as the wife of a man
of the financial resources and station in life of the
husband, not suitable to him personally. No
one would care what kind of house he might
choose for himself to live in. The husband's
judgment of what would be suitable for him and
his wife to live in would not be conclusive. When
she came to occupy any house the husband might
provide the wife could object to it as not being
suitable; and the court alone could finally settle
that point. But this would not prevent her from
again, by similar proceedings, driving her hus-
band out of that, or any other, house.

There is no escaping the conclusion. The hus-
band is beaten into fine dust. He is ground to
powder.

No reflection is intended to be hereby made on
the wife in the particular case cited above. The
facts in that case are unknown to the writer. It
is the principle of the law applicable to that case,
and to every other case which could arise under
that statute, which is here criticised.

CHAPTER V

It is an open and serious question what right, —
moral at least, if not legal, — the Legislature has
to pass laws of this nature at all, so far as it is
intended to affect the rights of husbands who
were married before this first act went into ef-
fect,— that is, before March 12, 1904. It is a
proposition admitting of no legal question that
marriage is a contract. The law reads many in-
cidents into it which were probably never in the
minds of the contracting parties. Their personal
agreements, and the large body of legal rules
on the subject, make up together the general con-
tract between husband and wife at the time they
were married. Their contract is thus made up,
in much the larger part, by the rules of law in
existence at the time of their marriage. Both
parties are conclusively presumed to know the
law, and all contracts are made with reference to,
in the light of, and in subordination to, the law.
One feature of the contract made by the husband
was that he would support his wife, who prom-
ised to serve and obey him, and that the sheriff
could sell his property in order to enforce 'his
obligations in this respect. He did not agree
that his wife was to have the power to put him
in jail, if he did not support her. But the Legis-

09

66 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

lature comes upon the scene later, however, and
says that she can do this very thing. This is a
variation of the contract as made by the husband;
and it may be that had such been the law at the
time of his marriage, he would not have been
willing to incur any such risk. In our opinion the
Legislature is without proper authority in thus
tampering with, altering, violating, and rewriting
the contract as made by the parties.

Of course, all men who marry since the passage
of these acts, do so at their own risk. There
is the law, and there is the girl, and there is the
jail; and if you marry her, she can hold the keys
of it over your head at all times for desertion or
non-support, under the circumstances contem-
plated by the acts. If you be unable to support
her, go to jail. If she be so disagreeable that you
cannot live with her, and are forced to run away
from 'her, you are liable to be caught, brought
back, and flung into jail. Knowing this when
you marry, you cannot now complain that the
Legislature has violated the contract you made
with your wife.

It must be remembered, in considering this
statute, that it is still the law, as it always has
been and always should be, that a husband and
father is legally liable, — that is, to the extent of
his property, — for the support of both his wife
and his children. This rule is absolutely proper.
The objection to this statute is that for the first
time in the 'history of our State certainly the fail-

HUSBAND AND WIFE 67

ure to perform these moral and civil duties are
made criminal offenses. This, too, at a time
when husbands have the least possible assistance
from their wives', or children's, property to aid
them in discharging these obligations; and when,
by virtue of other rules, their authority over their
wives and children is reduced to the lowest point.

This objection is not to be disposed of by a
superficial approbation of a rule which may have
been intended mainly to apply to those wholly
financially irresponsible, or who are flagrantly
delinquent in these matters. This is a rule which
is of universal application throughout the State;
its effect will gradually permeate every household
in Virginia, and tend to strain, or disrupt, rela-
tions which would otherwise be perfectly harmoni-
ous. Its effect will be similar to, although operat-
ing in the reverse order from, the case presented
to us in the book of Esther (Chapter I, 10-22.)
King Ahasuerus ordered his wife, Vashti, to ap-
pear at the banquet-table. She refused. The
case was brought before a solemn council of state,
and the queen was deposed, on the ground that
she had done wrong not only to the King, but
also to all the princes, and to all the people that
were in all the provinces of the King. For this
deed of the queen, they said, would come abroad
unto all women, so that they would despise their
husbands. In the same way, as a wife is a wife,
whether in a high or low station, when the
higher ones see the lower ones having their hus-

68 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

bands put in jail, they will naturally be impressed
by their right to have their husbands also put
in jail. It is thus that the whole of society be-
comes involved by such rules of law.

The strongest objection to this legislation is the
intrusion of the civil authorities into the domestic
circle, and its paralyzing influence on marital and
parental authority. The husbands and fathers
will be much less likely to desert their wives and
children, if they have proper authority over them.
This has already been badly shaken. Dissatis-
faction on the part of the husband and father
naturally follows. Dissatisfaction may increase
to disgust, and he may leave the wretched es-
tablishment, in which, for lack of proper author-
ity, there is no order. The wife, then, as a plan
to make him love "Home, Sweet Home" the more,
sends the policeman after him, and has him flung
into prison. When he comes out what will be his
frame of mind? The last state of that man,
and of that family, will be likely to be worse than
the first. In desperation 'he may possibly murder
the whole family, and then blow out his own
brains. This tragedy happens frequently. We
read of it nearly every week. We do not say that
it is due to this particular statute, but no doubt
it is due to the disorder introduced into the do-
mestic relations by this kind of legislation, which
has disturbed natural order, and disorder is a
natural consequence.

Why, may we ask, is there such a sudden and

HUSBAND AND WIFE 69

tremendous increase in the duties which a husband
owes his wife while there is no increase at all, but
a steady decrease, in the duties which a wife seems
to owe her husband? The relation is as old as
the human race. Now what has happened
recently to make it proper that husbands should
be treated in this way? If arresting people be the
proper way to secure domestic happiness, why
arrest only the husband on account of failure to
discharge marital duties? If breakfast be late, or
the buttons be not sewed on, why not arrest the
wife? Or, if the children be disobedient, why not
arrest them? In short, why not, in order to secure
real peace and happiness at home, put a policeman
in every household, make them the general cus-
todians of domestic tranquillity, and turn over
every home to the sheriff and the court? Alas!
peace and happiness are flowers of too delicate a
growth to flourish under this system.

The husband, as we have stated, was already
fully enough responsible for the support of his
wife, the Legislature having taken care that this
liability, even in two exceptionally rare cases,
should be also expressly provided for by statute,
thus: Section 1707 makes the husband liable for
the support of 'his wife if insane, and this liability
of the husband is expected to relieve her estate
from her own support during this period. And,
by Section 4117, if the husband be confined in
the penitentiary, his estate is liable for her sup-
port in the same proportion as if he were dead.

70 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

An edifying illustration is afforded by the fol-
lowing case of the extent to which the ideas of
what is necessary for a support can be carried.

"Indianapolis, June 13. — That diamonds have
become so great a necessity for the proper appear-
ance of a well-to-do woman that her husband is
liable for their purchase by her as necessities was
recognized by the Appellate Court in affirming a
judgment for $246 worth of jewelry bought by
the second wife of Dr. X., of Kokomo.

"The purchase included a diamond stud for
$150, from which she removed the diamond, hav-
ing it reset in a ring for herself; a gold watch; a
$50 scarf pin, and several small articles.

"The second Mrs. X. was a widow, aged
twenty-seven, and employed as a milliner when she
married Dr. X., aged sixty-five. She had roomed
at the X. home before the death of the first Mrs.
X., and Dr. X. bought her a fine diamond en-
gagement ring before their marriage, with the
statement that she should have more diamonds
after marriage.

"Dr. X. owned more than $75,000 worth of
property, but was always inclined to the simple
life, taking care of his own horse, while the sec-
ond Mrs. X. was inclined to dress and appear well
among her associates. After the marriage the
way of true love jolted over financial questions
and the purchases of Dr. X. for his new wife
were not sufficient to satisfy her longings, and she
made a trip to the jewelry store herself.

HUSBAND AND WIFE 71

"The most expensive purchase was the diamond
stud, which the new Mrs. X. soon was wearing
as a ring. Dr. X. then ordered the jewelers not
to sell his wife any more jewelry.

"He began proceedings later, and when the
jewelers' bill was presented, the doctor refused to
pay it. The Howard Circuit Court gave the
jewelers a judgment against the doctor and he
appealed.

"The Appellate Court, after reviewing the
authorities and showing the former holdings rela-
tive to what are necessaries for a wife for which a
husband is responsible, says:

' 'Under the Indiana rulings, we must hold it
to be a question of fact as to what are the means
and station of life of the parties and as to whether
the goods purchased are suitable to such means
and station. The standard of living is so far
advancing, and appellant admits that the standard
has advanced in Kokomo, that we cannot restrict
the meaning of the terms "necessaries" and "ar-
ticles suitable to one's station in life" to such
articles as they might have included some years
ago.

* 'It is a matter of common knowledge, of
which not even courts can be ignorant, that persons
of even much smaller means than appellant (Dr.
X.) are accustomed to provide their wives with
jewelry such as that which is the subject of this
suit, and that such articles can certainly be said
under modern conditions to be suitable to the

72 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

station in life of persons of the financial and social
standing of appellant/ '

If diamonds, the most purely luxurious and un-
necessary articles imaginable, can foe held by the
courts as necessaries, anything else on earth could
be, and every husband might be liable to be
plunged into expenditures contracted for by his
wife without his knowledge or consent, or even
against it, and his fortune, built up by his labor,
intelligence, self-denial and perseverance, may be
scattered to the winds; and 'he then, possibly un-
able on account of advancing years to make any
more money, be held liable to be flung into prison
for non-support.

When legislation of this sort acquires momen-
tum there seems to be no limit to the extent to
which it will go. Since the above was written
a bill has been introduced in the Legislature of
Virginia proposing to make the non-support of
wives a felony, punishable by confinement, in the
penitentiary. This proposition not only makes
the punishment very much more severe, but
makes this an extraditable offense, for which the
wretched husband may be arrested in another
state or country, and brought back to his home
for trial. There is thus, even by flight, no place
of safety left for him. He is put on the same
footing as a murderer.

Then another wiseacre brings in a bill to give
justices of the peace jurisdiction of these cases,
so as to make it more convenient, easier, cheaper,

HUSBAND AND WIFE 73

and more informal for the wives to have the hus-
bands locked up. Just run around the corner
and get the justice, instead of having to go
through with an orderly and solemn proceeding
in court.

An ex-governor of a Southern State now joins
in the 'hue and cry against husbands, and advo-
cates the following extravagance, if the news-
paper report be correct. Here is what it says:

"Chicago, January 30. — A curfew law for hus-
bands was advocated by Robert B. Glenn, former
governor of North Carolina, in a speech here
last night on the subject, 'The Country's Need of
Sterling Men and Women.'

' 'The man who stays away from his family
at night is the most contemptible creature on
earth,' he says. 'I wish we had a curfew law for
husbands, — a law that would make every hus-
band stay at home from eight o'clock in the even-
ing until six o'clock the next morning. A man's
place is at home with his wife, helping to train
the children in the way they should go.' '

A New York magistrate at once takes hold
of this brilliant idea, and the papers, a few days
after the promulgation of the curfew idea, her-
alded forth this wise decree :

"New York, February 13. — The nine o'clock
curfew will ring for one year for C., an em-
ployment agency manager. His failure to report
home at that hour every night will result in a
workhouse sentence.

74 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

"C. was brought into court on his wife's com-
plaint that he abused her and stayed out nights.

* 'For twelve months,' said the magistrate, 'you
will have to be home nights by nine o'clock, and
you will have to treat your wife properly.' '

Soon after this the judge of one of the courts
of the newly enfeminized State of California is
represented by the papers as advising as a proper
punishment for husbands who stay out late at
night that their wives give them no breakfast
the next morning.

Men, by their voluntary actions, bring a good
deal of this upon themselves by not assuming the
proper place in regard to the highest things in life.
They too often abandon the leadership in regard
to the highest matter, — religion; and we see them
meekly led along by their wives to the church
which the wives attend, instead of taking them to
their own churches. If they would open their
ears when they get there, and listen to the reading
of the recorded Word, they would hear that they,
not their wives, were the heads of the families,
and, consequently, might understand that they
were the husbands' churches which should be at-
tended. Having made this fundamental error,
it is not an unnatural transition then to see the
husband in public places rolling the baby-carriage ;
or if for any reason their pictures should be put
in the paper, to see the wife portrayed in heroic
size, while her husband is struck off in miniature
in the corner.

HUSBAND AND WIFE 75

Then the ingenuity of the women begins to
work, and a mass of novel propositions are ad-
vanced: that married men should have to wear
wedding-rings; that a modification should be
made in the title of Mister, to show whether a
man be a married or a single man; that all un-
married men be taxed for the selfish luxury they
enjoy of being single; that the women should keep
their maiden names; and so forth, and so on.

All these propositions have one end in view, —
to break down the position of man, and to have
women dictate to men their status in marriage,
instead of having this relation such as the men of
the world have thought best to make it. The
weakness with which the men of the United States
have resisted and resented these changes has al-
ready prejudiced the position of men in this coun-
try for generations to come. To yield still
further will ruin it forever. The "American hus-
band" has already become a byword; he has not
much further to go to become the laughing-stock
of the nations.

As in the days of the Spanish Inquisition, when
the wretched victim was brought forth to be burnt
at the stake, and his inhuman tormentors ingeni-
ously diminished the sympathy which his suffer-
ings might have been calculated to awaken in the
hearts of the spectators by making him an object
of ridicule, dressing him up in absurd costumes,
with figures representing the devil sewed upon
his clothes and with other grotesque devices, so

76 SHALL WOMAN VOTE?

the victim of the modern persecution of the head
of the family is made ridiculous, and often spoken
of and joked about as "Hubby," a word never
heard before the era of his persecution began,
but which, if allowed by men to be applied to
them, may confidently be counted upon to do its
part in 'helping to degrade the husband even more
than the word "Dad" will undermine the fathers.

A fair sample of all this is a bill-board sign re-
cently posted in this city of a "funny" moving-
picture show, — "Mr. Hubby's Wife," — in which
the "hubby" is presented on his knees, hands
opened, and eyes rolling up to heaven, while his
wife is beating him over the head with a clothes-
tree.

A less important, but still noticeable fact, is
the tendency to drop out of the language the
words "son" and "daughter." They are sup-
planted by the words "boy" and "girl." The
word boy applies just as well to the office-boy, the
elevator-boy, or the stable-boy. Girl applies just
as well to the shop-girl, the cash-girl, or the
house-girl. Son and daughter are much deeper,
and mean they who are descended from one.
There is an exclusiveness and dignity which be-
longs to these words, which it seems is displeasing
to those who wish to take children away from
their parents, or to those who lightly regard fam-
ily life. One can more easily break into the
family circle when the children are generalized
under the words boys and girls. This makes them

HUSBAND AND WIFE 77

members merely of the whole community, instead
of sons and daughters, which words unite them
by a so much firmer bond to their parents.

Even the word "Home" has been lowered. We
now hear of the "home" of this or that national
bank, the "home" of a piano store, the "home"
of a club, the "home" of a shoe store, and so on.
Is it possible that the explanation of this is to be
found in the fact, not that the men who use the
word do not know what a home means, but be-
cause they find more of that blessed content which
is supposed to belong to such a spot in their busi-
ness places than they do anywhere else?

Our civilization is off the track. The further
the locomotive is forced ahead along this line the
deeper the whole train will sink into the quagmire.
The attempt to subordinate men to women and
children, and to tie husbands to their wives'
apron-strings, if it succeed, would simply mean
the ruin and disgrace of the race.

If they stand in mortal terror of arrest by their
wives, and are shut up in their homes every night
as in a jail, while their children roam the streets,
and their wives are out at a party, "The Land
of the Free and the Home of the Brave" is a
description which could no longer be applied, ex-
cept in jest, to that portion of the earth inhabited
by the men of the United States of America.

The issues raised by the new laws on this sub-
ject are of such a fundamental character that the
subjects here discussed rise above any question

78 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

of chivalry. No women on the face of the earth
ever put forth such audacious demands as the
women of America are putting forth to-day. The
welfare of the race is at stake; for no less a ques-
tion is ultimately involved in these measures than
who is to control public and private affairs in
this country, the men or the women?

When all the women such as we have always
thought of women as being, or trying to be, or
at least being told that they should be, shall have
been ruined and utterly exterminated by these new
laws, what have the men of the world to expect
in the way of pleasant companionship, affectionate
cooperation, sympathy, and love from the race
of shrews, scolds, termagants, amazons, viragos,
furies, and suffragettes who would take their
places? These last are surely insatiable. With
all that has been done for women in the past few
years, their present demands convict them of
being true daughters of the horseleach.

What powerful influences have been at work
to make such legislation possible? Why have
legislatures composed of men been willing to enact
rules which bear so heavily upon other men, and
so degrade them in respect to their highest rela-
tions, those of husband and father? It would
appear that the irresponsibility for their financial
obligations, which has been created in the last
few decades for all debtors, may be partly the
cause of the adoption of these laws.

The husband is civilly liable for the support of

HUSBAND AND WIFE 79

his wife. But between him and the grocer's bill,
the butcher's bill, the milk bill, the dressmaker's
bill, and so on, there stand the "poor man's ex-
emption," which covers nearly all the household
goods ; the fifty dollars a month salary exemption,
and the "Homestead Exemption," covering two
thousand dollars' worth of any kind of property,
from the home in which the family lives down to
barrels of whiskey, in which a "Homestead" has
been known to be claimed by a solemn deed spread
upon the public records. The consequence of these
exemptions is that, although the husband is liable
and judgment can be obtained against him, yet in
the vast majority of cases he is what is called
"execution proof," and nothing can be actually
realized from the judgment after it is obtained.

Add to these exemptions that favorite scheme
of putting such property as he may have in his
wife's name, and then try to collect a bill from
him, and you will find yourself engaged in a hope-
less enterprise. This situation, resulting in so
many cases in complete immunity from just lia-
bilities, has occurred too often not to call for
some measure of relief. But the remedy which
has been applied, instead of repealing these de-
moralizing and dishonesty-creating exemptions, is
a recurrence to the essential principles of the law
of imprisonment for debt, repealed in Virginia in
the year 1850, now making it apply, however,
only to the moral obligation of a man to his wife
and family, instead of making it apply, as the

8o SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

Legislature might have done, to his legal obliga-
tion to his creditors, who have given valuable con-
siderations for their particular claims, by furnish-
ing supplies for the support of the family. By
creating, claiming, and using these exemptions to
defeat the just claims of their creditors the men
have helped to bring upon themselves a worse
affliction than having to pay their debts. "Cheat-
ing works never thrive." They can now be put
in jail, a proceeding which, while ruining the
home, neither supports the family nor pays the
bills.

With reference to the care and custody of the
children, the law is that the husband is entitled
to them, and that they will not be taken from
his custody without the strongest reasons there-
for; and this right is not affected by the voluntary
separation of the parties. (See Latham vs.
Latham, 30 Grattan, 307.) By Section 2610 it
is provided, however, that the court may take
them from him when the husband and wife are
living in a state of separation, without having
been divorced.

Formerly the law protected the relation of hus-
band and wife from intrusion by the outside
world, or by the State. What the husband told
the wife could not be proved against him; what
the wife told the husband could not be proved
against her. The relation was held sacred and
inviolable. There was then some one in the
world that either consort could unburden his or

HUSBAND AND WIFE 81

her heart to freely and live with, without danger.

What has the Legislature done with this rule?
It has changed it completely so far as civil suits
generally are concerned; but it is still fairly well
preserved as to criminal proceedings. Under Sec-
tion 3346 A (Acts 1901-2, p. 798), the title to
your property may all be taken away from you,
and all sorts of liabilities may be fixed upon you,
by putting your wife on the stand to prove the
case against you, — that is, by any other evidence
which she may give than your communications
made to her during the marriage. She cannot
prove the case against you by what you told her;
but she can by what she may have seen and
learned, which she would not have seen and
learned probably but for being your wife.

As to criminal cases, this statute provides that
either a husband or wife "shall be allowed, and,
subject to the same rules of evidence governing
other witnesses, may be compelled to testify in
behalf of each other, 'but neither shall be com-
pelled nor, without the consent of the other, al-
lowed to testify against the other; provided, how-
ever, if either be called and examined in any case
as a witness in behalf of the other, the one so
examined shall be deemed competent, and, sub-
ject to the same rules of evidence governing other
witnesses, may be compelled to testify against the
other. The failure of either husband or wife
to testify shall create no presumption against
the accused, nor be the subject of any comment

82 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

before the court or jury by the prosecuting at-
torney."

It would seem much the wiser to have this
principle apply also to civil proceedings in gen-
eral. What a happy relation would be likely to
prevail in a family in which the husband had lost
his whole fortune by the evidence his wife had
given against him ! Domestic peace and harmony
is too precious a thing to be allowed to be broken
up in this way; at least, such was the view for-
merly taken of it. And there is no reason why it
should not be as precious to-day as it was then.

CHAPTER VI

The rules on the subject of divorce have not
been changed in as radical a way as in regard
to property rights and other personal rights of the
parties; and, compared with them, may be con-
sidered fixed and somewhat more reasonable.
Still, they are far removed from the Scriptural
view of this relation, which is that of absolute
identity.

uThe Pharisees also came unto him, tempting
him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man
to put away his wife for every cause?

"And he answered and said unto them, Have
ye not read, that he which made them at the be-
ginning made them male and female,

"And said, for this cause shall a man leave
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife;
and they twain shall be one flesh?

"Wherefore they are no more twain, but one
flesh. What therefore God hath joined together,
let not man put asunder." (Matthew XIX, 3-6.)

South Carolina is the only State where this
view is enforced, no divorce being there per-
mitted.

83

84 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

The New Testament, however, allows one
ground (Matthew V, 32). The law generally
should conform to this.

The code of Virginia recognizes twelve grounds
of divorce (Sections 2257, 2258). In marriage
either consort takes the other for better or for
worse. But the Legislature comes in and authorizes
an absolute divorce where either of the parties is
sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary, and
provides that in this case no pardon granted to the
party so sentenced shall restore such party to his
or her conjugal rights. This is not a proper
ground. Persons sometimes get sentenced to the
penitentiary for offenses they never committed.
Or, even if they did commit them, the sentence
might be for only a short time. But in any case
it is not a good ground for a divorce. Because
you have lost your liberty is no reason why you
should lose your wife or your husband. You
should have one friend at least whom you may still
retain when your term is over. What a noble
example was presented by the heroic efforts of
Madame Dreyfus, who, while her husband was a
prisoner on Devil's Island, instead of getting a
divorce from him, established his innocence and
had him set free.

Another improper ground is that where, prior
to the marriage, either party, without the knowl-
edge of the other, has been convicted of an infa-
mous offense. What is an infamous offense? And
what has that to do with a marriage contracted

HUSBAND AND WIFE 85

afterward? It establishes it as a rule of law that
once be convicted of an infamous offense, and you
cannot contract a valid marriage unless you dis-
close the fact to the person you expect to marry.
Why not let the dead past bury its dead?

Another utterly objectionable ground of abso-
lute divorce is that where either party charged
with an offense punishable with death or con-
finement in the penitentiary has been indicted, is a
fugitive from justice, and has been absent two
years. One can easily imagine cases of the great-
est hardship under such a rule as that. Two
years is a very short time. Your alleged crime
may be a political one, — rebellion, treason, or
some such charge. Why should that authorize the
tearing of your wife from you? And as to being
a fugitive from justice, anybody is likely to be-
come a fugitive from justice, if 'he think he will
probably be convicted of something that he may
not have done. It is much more likely to appear
in his eyes that he is a fugitive from injustice than
from justice.

Another objectionable ground is the rule allow-
ing an absolute divorce, where either party wil-
fully deserts or abandons the other for three
years; such divorce may be decreed to the party
abandoned. The objection to this rule is that
it is very likely to be due to the person abandoned
that he or she is abandoned. The rule can be
worked this way. Make yourself so disagreeable
that your consort prefers to abandon you rather

86 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

than to live with you, then get a divorce on the
ground of desertion.

A qualified divorce may be obtained for cruelty,
reasonable apprehension of bodily hurt, abandon-
ment, or desertion (Section 2258).

The abandonment or desertion in this case may
have existed for one day. The cruelty and rea-
sonable apprehension of bodily hurt may be only
due to all sorts of ill-founded fears and notions.

We will have reached a worse point in the
development of this divorce system when we add
incompatibility of temper, which simply means
that the parties cannot get on together, or do not
choose to, or are tired of each other, and so on.

An illustration of the length to which these
doctrines go in breaking up homes is shown in the
following newspaper extracts, taken at random
from the daily papers in St. Louis, Mo. This
is from the St. Louis Republic, September 8, 1904,
the names only being here suppressed :

"A. B. C. charged in her suit for divorce, filed
in the Circuit Court yesterday, that her husband,
Frederick, had his picture taken with another
woman.

"She also alleged that he called her bad names
and said that he was tired of married life. They
were married at Clayton, Mo., August 21, 1901,
and separated November 12, 1903. She asks
for the restoration of her maiden name, X."

"W.Z-. alleges that her husband, Z., compelled

HUSBAND AND WIFE 87

her to work to support herself and him, and
that he refused to work and spent his time 'hunting
and fishing. His father and sisters lived with
them, and his father cursed her and called her bad
names, she alleges. The couple were married
November 9, 1892, at Nashville, 111., and sepa-
rated in August, 1902. She asks for the restora-
tion of her maiden name, Y."

"X. Y. charges that her husband, Y., drank and
failed to support her. They were married No-
vember 13, 1889, and separated June 2, 1904.
She asks for the custody of their child."

UA. B. alleges that her husband, B., abused her
and failed to support her. They were married
September 2, 1898, and separated March 23,

i899."

"A. B. C. charges that her husband, C., failed
to support her and deserted her. They were
married February 12, 1902, and separated April

15, 1902."

UX. Y. Z. charges that his wife, F., deserted
him, August 6, 1897. They were married June
7, 1897."

"W. X. Y. charges that his wife, C., subjected
him to indignities. They were married February

1 6, 1893, and separated September i, 1904. He
asks for the custody of their two children."

"A. B. C. alleges that her husband, C., drove
her out of the house and locked 'her out at night.
They were married June 25, 1893, and separated

88 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

August 9, 1904. She asks for the custody of their
two children."

"B. A. alleges that her husband, A., failed to
support her, was cruel to her, and drove her out
of the house. They were married June 20, 1898,
and separated September 4, 1904. She states
that her husband receives $250 a month."

"X. Y. alleges that her husband, Y., deserted
her in December, 1900. They were married at
Oakley, 111., March 5, 1889."

"A. B. charges that his wife, B., subjected him
to indignities. They were married October n,
1898, in St. Louis, and separated April 3, 1901.'*

"C. D. charges that her husband, D., failed to
support her, and deserted her. She was com-
pelled to live with her mother, who supported
her and her child, she states. They were mar-
ried in St. Louis, June i, 1901, and separated
August 8, 1901."

"A. B. alleges that her husband, B., abused her
and failed to support her. They were married
April 26, 1893, and separated February 8, 1904.
She asks for the custody of their child."

The same paper, two days afterward, reported
the daily crop as follows :

"X. Y. Z., in his suit for divorce, filed in the
Circuit Court yesterday, alleges that his wife, M.,
was jealous and disturbed him in his occupation
of hotel clerk. They were married June 19, 1894,
and separated August 2, 1904."

HUSBAND AND WIFE 89

"A. B. charges that her husband, B., drank and
failed to support her. They were married Sep-
tember 14, 1899, and separated February 10,
1903. She asks for the restoration of he*
maiden name, C."

UX. Y. Z. charges that her husband, Z., stayed
out late at night, abused her, and failed to sup-
port her. They were married December i, 1898,
and separated May 5, 1904."

"A. B. alleges that his wife, B., refused to pre-
pare his supper, and struck 'him with a towel-stick
while he was bathing. They were married June
15, 1902 and separated May i, 1904. He asks
for the custody of their child."

"X. Y. charges that his wife, E., subjected him
to indignities. They were married March 30,
1892, and separated September 7, 1904."

"A. B. alleges that his wife, A. subjected him
to indignities. They were married in June, 1885,
in Philadelphia, Pa., and separated in April,
1899. He asks for the custody of their five chil-
dren."

Under this system, any disturbance is seized
upon as a ground of divorce. The fundamental
relation of the race is to be broken up, the family
torn asunder, the children fought over, whenever
husband and wife get put out and engage in the
least quarrel. Patience, resignation, fortitude,
fidelity, meekness, long-suffering, and other kin-
dred virtues are not inculcated nor fostered by

90 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

such a system. To the contrary, they are left to
wither and vanish from the earth.

A fine case of cruelty as a ground of divorce
comes from New York :

"New York, September 7.— Mrs. Y. Z. filed a
suit for separation from Z. on the ground of
cruelty. One of her chief allegations is that on
many occasions he taunted her because of her size
and weight.

"She said that in May last he came home one
night, awakened her, and thrust in her face a
newspaper advertisement of a remedy to reduce
weight, and advised her to use it.

uMrs. Z. also said that a letter was sent to her
from a Denver concern advertising treatment for
stout women. It was an answer to a request for
information. She believes her husband had the
letter sent to humiliate and distress her."

An effect of these proceedings, well worthy of
mention, is the vulgarization of marriage. Under
the former rules of law a veil was drawn around
the home. What happened there was not for the
public to know, to comment upon, to criticise, to
laugh at, or to weep over. Personal and family
dignity was protected, and, in that fact, fostered.
The family troubles are now too often promptly
"aired" in the police court. The reporters are
on hand, and the daily papers reveal the disgrace-
ful scenes to everybody.

HUSBAND AND WIFE 91

"Fort Collins, Col., December 28.— Chief of
Police S. is peeved. He thinks he has a right
to be. He declared shortly after midnight that
he doesn't mind being called out of 'bed to run
down criminals, but does object to being asked
to determine whether a newly married husband or
wife is entitled to the right side of a bed.

"Called by an anxious voice over the telephone
he rushed immediately to an address in the east-
ern part of town. S. arrived to find a newly mar-
ried couple in the midst of a lively debate.

"A nineteen-year-old wife informed him that
her husband had in two short months of married
life been in the habit of going to bed first and
appropriating the choicest side, to which she
claimed an equal right.

"When Chief S. and two deputies left the
home, after spending an hour in an attempt to
settle the dispute, the wife occupied the coveted
place she sought."

The effort has apparently been made to make
the wife independent of, and therefore separate
from, her husband, giving him little or no interest
in her property, and no control over her person,
and instead making the husband amenable to
the civil authorities for any injury to or neglect of
her.

This is an impossible scheme for satisfactory
matrimonial relations. It is fatally defective in

92 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

dividing, neutralizing, or destroying the authority
of the husband as the head of the family. It is
unphilosophical, and opposed to the known needs
of .society, and the construction of all human
institutions, every one of which must have a
head, — a recognized legal head, with known
rights and powers which are unquestioned by
those within its sphere of influence. Order is
necessary for peace; peace is necessary for hap-
piness. All the analogies we are familiar with
bear out this proposition; there is only one fore-
man over a band of laborers, one leader of an
orchestra, one presiding officer of a meeting, one
president of a company, one principal of a school,
one conductor of a train, one captain of a ship,
one general over an army, one Governor of a
State, one President of a Country, one King over
a Kingdom.

This rule prevails throughout all the combina-
tions of life. The most important combination
of all is the domestic circle. Here that rule must
also prevail. There must be one head, or there
is discord, confusion, anarchy, and unhappiness.
Happiness is the object to be attained, not for
one member of the family only, but for all, —
the husband, the wife, and the children, — and
this is to be found in a due and orderly construc-
tion of the family, assigning to each his or her
proper place. Disorder and anarchy are the
greatest of all misfortunes which can befall man-

HUSBAND AND WIFE 93

kind. The crew of a ship which has mutinied
are not in a happy state. The overthrow of
lawful authority merely gives rise to the erection
of illegal and violent authority. It is only under
an orderly arrangement in the State, city, or
family that peace, and consequent happiness, is
to be found. Such was the former rule; but
this rule has in very recent years been shaken
to pieces by the Legislature.

The head of the house, to be the head of the
house, should have the command of the family
means; in order to discharge his obligation to
support the family. This is an old principle.
Upon marrying, a man assumes a large burden
of responsibility. The customs of our own an-
cestors formerly recognized this, as is still the
case on tthe continent, and the family of the bride,
if she had no means herself, made up a sum
which he received with her. He was entitled to
it. The plan now in vogue is to deny him nearly
everything.

The psychology of this on the part of the wife
is also bad. It make a separation. All is not
given. The bride gives herself, but withholds
her property. This is not -the full, whole-souled
adoption of the husband as her head, leader, pro-
tector, and counselor, which he should be.

The greatest writer in our language, and one
of the greatest known exponents of human na-
ture, has drawn a very different picture of the

94 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

natural attitude of a woman toward the man she
loves. Bassanio has risked his choice of the
caskets for the hand of the beautiful and rich
heiress, Portia. He has chosen well, and Portia
is to be his wife. Her feeling toward her future
husband is thus beautifully expressed when she
says to him :

"You see me, Lord Bassanio, where I stand,

Such as I am : though for myself alone

I would not be ambitious in my wish,

To wish myself much better; yet for you

I would be trebled twenty times myself :

A thousand times more fair, ten thousand times

more rich,

That, only to stand high in your account,
I might in virtues, beauties, livings, friends,
Exceed account; but the full sum of me
Is sum of — something; which, to term in gross,
Is an unlesson'd girl, unschooled, unpracticed;
Happy in this, she is not yet so old
But she may learn; then happier in this,
She is not bred so dull but she can learn ;
Happiest of all, in that her gentle spirit
Commits itself to yours to be directed,
As from her lord, her governor, her king.
Myself and what is mine to you and yours
Is now converted : but now I was the lord
Of this fair mansion, master of my servants,
Queen o'er myself ; and even now, but now,
This house, these servants, and this same myself,
Are yours, my lord; I give them with this ring."

How could Bassanio help loving such a wife
as that !

It should be the object of the lawmakers to
insure, promote, and increase love between hus-
band and wife. If this be accomplished, all the

HUSBAND AND WIFE 95

rest will work out satisfactorily and automatically.
The question is therefore a most important one
in this connection; which system will more tend
to promote love between husband and wife? On
the one hand, a policy of full trust and confidence
in the husband, or, on the other, a policy of
distrust and a separation of interest between the
consorts. There is a lot of human nature in
husbands. Marriage is a state which men are
free to enter, or not, as they choose. No sane
man takes such a step if he does not expect to
gain something by it. If the Legislature adhere
to the policy of stripping the husbands of all
benefit, advantage, or pleasure which they might
derive from marriage, a natural consequence of
this policy would be to discourage men from
entering into that state. It has some advantages,
and many responsibilities, restrictions, burdens,
and limitations. Add to these burdens and these
responsibilities the policeman, the sheriff, the
criminal courts, and the jails, and take away as
many of the advantages as possible, and the men
may prefer to find their happiness in the pleasures
of single blessedness, — in clubhouses, or in the
lower pleasures of bar-rooms, 'and other such re-
sorts. When marriage is sought to be made, on
these modern lines, (thoroughly satisfactory to the
women, it will be found probably not to please
the men. It will probably also not really suit the
women, for this scheme of married life tends to

96 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

extract all the sweetness from the relation, and
to supplant love, trust, devotion, and honor with
distrust, reservation, conflicts of authority, and
discord.

This policy is, as we all know, a new thing
in Virginia, only dating back to April 4, 1877,
and going from that date rapidly from bad to
worse.

Its effect on the social and business status
of married men has already been bad, and
the injury tends to increase rapidly. We all
know many persons who were married under the
old system. Very many of us are the children
of marriages made under that system. These
two classes yet leaven the lump of society, and,
in a measure, keep alive the ideals which for-
merly characterized this relation. But, as with
every revolving year we get farther and farther
away from that time, and there are fewer and
fewer representing the former conditions, and
more and more who have never known anything
but the present system, the relation will become
more and more demoralized.

The fact should be emphasized that around
the old system, — the system of love, confidence,
and trust, — sprung up and blossomed the flowers
of poetry and romance. All our love stories,
and all the dear traditions of the past on this
subject, were coexistent with the laws which have
been so recently overthrown; while around the
present system has grown up the noxious weed

HUSBAND AND WIFE 97

of divorce, and the too often repeated scenes of
violence, terminating in murder and suicide.

Divorce will continue to increase, and these
tragedies will increase, not until the laws relating
to divorce merely be made more strict, as is the
frantic demand of so many well meaning men
and women, public speakers and writers, but until
the marriage relation be made again more satis-
factory. A system contemplating two heads in
one house, or the unmanly surrender of leader-
ship to the women, is a system which will forever
foster divorce, if indeed it do not undermine mar-
riage and society itself.

There is no disgrace in a wife's obeying her
husband. We all have to obey someone; most
of us, a great many persons. We must obey God.
We must obey the laws, we must obey the civil
authorities, the governor, the policeman, the con-
ductor, die captain, our employers, and so forth.
If there were to be no obedience, the world would
be a pandemonium. All lawful authority must
be obeyed, without question, promptly and cheer-
fully. With obedience, there is satisfaction to
both parties. With disobedience to lawful
authority, nothing can be expected but turmoil.
The religion, the laws, and the customs of the race
leave no question as to which is the one to exer-
cise this authority. It is the husband. The
reasonableness of this is well stated by Shakes-
peare in these lines, in which the once terrible
Katharina, softened into a loving and dutiful

98 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

wife, tells to the women of all time their proper

duties to their husbands :

"Fie, fie! unknit that threat'ning, unkind brow;

And dart not scornful glances from those eyes,

To wound thy lord, thy King, thy governor;

It blots thy beauty, as frosts bite the meads;

Confounds thy fame, as whirlwinds shake fair buds;

And in no sense is meet or amicable.

A woman moved is like a fountain troubled,

Muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty;

And while it is so, none so dry or thirsty

Will deign to sip, or touch one drop of it.

Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,

Thy head, thy sov'reign; one that cares for thee,

And for thy maintenance ; commits his body

To painful labor, both by sea and land,

To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,

Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe;

And craves no other tribute at thy hands

But love, fair looks and true obedience, —

Too little payment for so great a debt.

Such duty as the subject owes the prince,

Even such a woman oweth to her husband;

And, when she's froward, peevish, sullen, sour,

And not obedient to his honest will,

What is she but a foul contending rebel,

And graceless traitor to her loving lord? —

I am asham'd that women are so simple

To offer war, where they should kneel for peace ;

Or seek for rule, supremacy, and sway,

When they are bound to serve, love and obey.

Why are our bodies soft and weak and smooth,

Unapt to toil and trouble in the world,

But that our soft conditions, and our hearts,

Should well agree with our external parts?"

When it is said that it is the right of the
husband to command, what is meant is not that he
is to do this in a loud voice and in an insulting
manner. No gentleman, nor reasonable man,
would do this. Such a course would make living
together on the part of any two persons, so re-

HUSBAND AND WIFE 99

lated, impossible. What is meant is that his
definitely expressed wish, or judgment, is to be
observed in all uncertain or debated matters. His
views in these cases should be followed without
question, as a matter of course, just as the orders
given by the physician to his patient, the lawyer
to his client, the judge to the sheriff, the officer
to the soldier, the general to his staff, the War
Department to the generals, the Bishop to his
clergy, or any other order which emanates from
lawful authority.

The propriety of a wife's promising to obey
such orders was brought up for decision in a case
which was probably the highest which could arise
in our race. Victoria, Queen of the United King-
dom of Great Britain and Ireland, and Empress
of India, was about to be married to Albert,
Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Her min-
isters raised the point that if she promised to
obey her husband, as the marriage service of the
Church of England required, the control of the
Kingdom might thus pass from her to this for-
eign prince, and the rights of her subjects be put
under his authority. They therefore advised, in
this extraordinary case, that the form of the ser-
vice be altered, so that the promise on her part
"to obey" should be omitted. That great woman
brushed all these arguments aside, refused to have
the words of the marriage service changed, and
declared that she not only intended to be a good
queen, but a good wife also.

ioo SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

Josephine, the lovable Empress of France, says :
"Our glory, the glory of woman, lies in submis-
sion; and if it be permitted us to reign, our empire
rests on gentleness and goodness."

Obedience lies at the very foundation of every-
thing. It is the indispensable condition of prog-
ress and safety. The Bible enjoins upon us the
rule: "Be ye subject one to another," not, uBe
ye all independent one of another, and no one
obey any one else." Human society would have
come to an end long ago, had it worked accord-
ing to any such plan. The truth and importance
of this is emphasized in times of very great nat-
ional danger and difficulty, when the last resort
of all is made use of, in the appointment of a
Dictator, to whom every one, — man, woman, and
child, — must yield immediate and absolute obedi-
ence.

Why should a woman not obey her husband?
Single headship and unity of purpose is indis-
pensable to the success of every undertaking. A
house divided against itself falls. What would
become of the ship, if two steersmen tugged in
conflict at the rudder; what would become of the
coach and its passengers, if two drivers each held
a rein; or, of the automobile, if two directed its
course? Are not the affairs of the family most
important of all, and is it not inevitable that the
rules which regulate human conduct in other mat-
ters are applicable in the same way to the
domestic circle?

HUSBAND 'AND WIFE

The man a woman marries holds thereby the
office of husband. Her obedience to him is obedi-
ence to lawful authority; and obedience to lawful
authority never disgraced anyone. No matter
what laws, made by human authority, may do to
undermine this office, its foundation and dignity
rest upon decrees which cannot be repealed. They
were established by the Creator of the Universe.

CHAPTER VII

The supposed, or alleged, trouble which this
' modern legislation in England and America
sought to correct was the creation of so great an
interest in the wife's property in favor of the
husband solely by virtue of the marriage. The
solution of this trouble might have been, either
the development of a system involving a com-
munity of interest on the part of the husband and
wife in regard to all the property which belonged
to either, or a system of separate ownerships by
the two consorts, the wife to keep hers, the hus-
band to keep his, with certan rights for each in
the property of the other, after the death of
either.

The latter plan has been adopted, to the com-
plete exclusion of the former; but no modifica-
tion in the duties and responsibilities of the hus-
band was made to correspond with the change
which very seriously affected his rights. Instead,
having found him willing to submit to having
these rights taken away from him, the husband
has become the butt or target for legislation of
a very hostile nature. It seems to be the policy
of our Legislatures to see how much he will
stand. The situation in England in this respect,

103

HUSBAND AND WIFE 103

though not nearly so bad as with us, has yet
called forth from a very high authority the fol-
lowing criticism:

"A law which was preeminently favorable to
the husband has become a law that is preemi-
nently favorable to the wife, and we do not ade-
quately explain this result by saying that a harsh
or unjust law is like to excite reaction; we ought
also to say that if our modern law was to be pro-
duced, it was necessary that our medieval lawyers
should reject that idea of community which came
very naturally to the men of their race and of
their age. We may affirm with some certainty
that, had they set themselves to develop that
idea, the resulting system would have taken a
deep root and would have been a far stronger
impediment to the 'emancipation of the married
woman' than our own common law has been.
Elsewhere we may see the community between
husband and wife growing and thriving, resist-
ing all the assaults of Romanism and triumphing
in the modern codes. Long ago we chose our
individualistic path; what its end will be we
none of us know." (Pollock and Maitland's
"History of English Law," Vol. II, p. 431.)

Of course we do not know the future, but
we know from the past how such a similar sys-
tem worked out in the later Roman jurisprudence.
In Inge's "Society in Rome Under the Caesars,"
on page 182, we find the following:

"Rich wives were not much sought after by

104 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

wise men. Their complete emancipation made
them difficult to manage, and many a henpecked
husband acknowledged the truth of Martial's
epigram —

1. "'Uxorem quare locupletem ducere nolim
quceritis? Uxori nub ere nolo mea,' x

and exclaimed with Juvenal,

2. " 'Intolerabilium nihil est quam femlna
divesJ 2

"Accordingly, since rich and poor wives were
both objectionable, the large majority of men
never married at all. So strong was the aversion
to matrimony that neither taxes on bachelors
nor rewards to fathers had any effect. In re-
publican days a Metellus had expressed the com-
mon opinion when he said, 'If, Romans, we could
exist without a wife, we should all avoid the
infliction; but since nature has ordained that we
can neither be happy with a wife nor exist at
all without one, let us sacrifice our own comfort
to the good of our country.' In the first century
A. D., men were less patriotic, but not a whit
more disposed to married life."

On page 62 of the same work we find this:
"Without further details, then, let us state that
the Empire found the whole of society pervaded
with the grossest immorality, that marriage was
avoided to an extent which threatened the extinc-

1. You ask why I am unwilling to marry a wife rich in
lands? I am unwilling to be in subjection to my wife.

2. Nothing is more intolerable than a rich wife.

HUSBAND AND WIFE 105

tion of the Roman stock, that divorce was prac-
ticed with a scandalous levity and frequency."

On page 37 of the same work we read: "So
great were the advantages of childlessness that
Seneca consoles a mother who had just lost her
only son by reminding her of the greater con-
sideration she will now enjoy. A man who mar-
ried was regarded as hardly in his senses, — 'Certe
sanus eras? Uxorem, Postume, duels?'"*

Such was the final result at Rome of a policy
similar to our new rules on this subject.

This system naturally leads to divorce, the
proportion of divorces to marriages increasing
rapidly. And it has been estimated that eighty
per cent, of the divorce suits are brought by the
wives against their husbands.

The following statements are probably correct :

"Kansas City, Mo., September 25. — Woman,
not man, is the real homewrecker, according to
statistics that are being compiled from the divorce
court records here. So far as the statistics show,
eighty per cent, of the divorce suits now on the
docket of the Circuit Court are brought by wives,
while virtually the same percentage of the suits are
brought on so-called trivial charges, such as in-
compatibility of temper, quarrels, and other al-
legations which do not charge infraction of the
moral or civil laws.

"Previous statistics showed that in Jackson

*Ypu certainly used to be sane. Are you going to get
married, Postumus?

106 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

County, in which Kansas City is, there were three
suits for divorce filed for every five marriage
licenses issued, and this startlingly high percent-
age prompted an investigation into divorce sta-
tistics.

"It was found that while eighty per cent, of
the plaintiffs were women, and eighty per cent.
of their suits were brought on trivial charges,
that less than ten per cent, of the suits filed by the
men were based on trivial charges, while ninety
per cent, were based on the more serious charges
of desertion, immoral conduct, or neglect of the
home through a preference for working. Men,
too, it was shown by the suits, were long-suffering,
the average duration of married life of pairs in
which the husband was the plaintiff being twice
the duration of the marriage in suits in which the
wife was plaintiff.

"Women, too, the statistics show, have ap-
parently less regard for the future of their chil-
dren. Whereas, where men are plaintiffs in
divorce suits, the average is only one child to
a family, three hundred suits taken consecutively
from the docket in which women are plaintiffs,
show nearly one thousand children, or an average
of a little more than three to the family."

"Boston, Mass., October 16. — Women them-
selves are almost entirely to blame for the large
number of divorces,' declared Miss Mary F.
Macomber, pastor of the Wales Avenue Baptist
Church of Brockton, in a recent sermon. The

HUSBAND AND WIFE 107

causes for divorces, according to Miss Ma-
comber, are:

"Late, cold, and hurried meals; too much gos-
siping and talking; too many teas, parties, and
socials; too many club meetings; too little home
attention; too much domestic extravagance; too
many fads, fancies, and follies, and not enough
care for a tidy, comfortable, bright, and homelike
home.

" 'The women blame it on their husbands/ says
Miss Macomber, 'and accuse them of staying
away at night, of drinking, of preferring other
society to theirs, and so forth. But true as these
charges may be, the root of the evil is always that
the husbands have not found in their homes con-
geniality enough to make them desire to remain
in them.' "

Mrs. Hetty Greene endorses these views, if
the following newspaper version of an interview
with her be correct :

" 'Another thing/ she said, 'that's all wrong is
the home life of people. There aren't any homes.
Women are too busy trying to take men's work
away from them. I don't believe in suffrage.
Women spend all their time and money on their
clothes and amusements and let their homes take
care of themselves.

" 'Nowadays women feed their husbands and
children on canned food, because its easier, and
the husbands get mad and holler, and then there's
a row and a divorce. And if there isn't the

io8 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

husbands get sick on the canned cooking and die.
My husband lived till he was eighty-two years
old. I never fed him any canned food. That's
what my cooking did.' '

When a divorce suit is brought by a wife
against her husband, the following provision of
the Code of Virginia applies : uThe court in
term or the judge in vacation may, at any time
pending the suit, in the discretion of such court
or judge, make any order that may be proper to
compel the man to pay any sums necessary for
the maintenance of the woman and to enable her
to carry on the suit, or to prevent him from im-
posing any restraint on her personal liberty, or
to provide for the custody and maintenance of
the minor children of the parties during the
pending of the suit, or to preserve the estate of
the man, so that it be forthcoming to meet any
decree which may be made in the suit, or to com-
pel him to give security to abide such decree."
(Code, Section 2261.)

To anyone who comprehends the full mean-
ing of this statute it is little less than terrible.
Your wife, having become estranged from you,
probably from no fault of yours, decides to sue
for divorce. Her picture will possibly be put in
the paper, and she will think herself a heroine.

You and your estate are at once put by this
statute at the mercy of the judge who has juris-
diction of the case. Your wife's lawyers, it may
be personal enemies of yours, help themselves to

HUSBAND AND WIFE 109

such part of your property as they may consider
a proper compensation to them for bringing the
suit against you. You pay them for tormenting
you, for breaking up your home, and tearing
your wife from you. You are also to pay all
other costs which your wife's suit against you
calls for. You are also ordered to pay at once
such sum as may be necessary for your wife's
maintenance. If you be a poor man, the sum will
take a large part of your earnings or savings.
If you be a rich man, it will amount to a handsome
income. But, you say, you would not do it, that
you consider it an outrage to plunder you in this
manner for the benefit of your wife, who has
acted very badly toward you, that the whole
difficulty was due to the unreasonableness of your
wife, and that it was all brought on by the bad
advice given her by her relations. For these
reasons, you say, you are fully justified in de-
clining to pay one cent to aid her in her most
unjust conduct. Very well, the judge will order
the sheriff to put you in jail for "contempt of
court," in not paying what he has ordered you
to pay; and off to jail you will be marched,
locked up, and treated as a criminal, until, ap-
preciating the hopelessness of your situation, you
raise the money and pay it over.

Having thus provided those who are now your
open and avowed enemies with the sinews of war
against you, the suit proceeds. Your wife wants a
divorce from the bond of matrimony, the custody

no SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

of all the children, to resume her maiden name,
and to have a large and steady income paid over
by you to her, under the name of alimony. The
facts justifying the divorce have to be taken by
depositions, a long and costly process, for which
you have to pay. Your actions are put under
the microscope. Your estate, resources, and
"earning capacity" are all investigated; and at
the end of the ordeal you find yourself under a
decree to pay probably a large lump sum, or a
large proportion of your income, or what you
might earn, for the rest of her life, for the sup-
port of your former helpmeet, who has now be-
come the cause of your greatest earthly misery.

You rebel again, you protest, and declare that
you will not submit to such gross injustice. You
will sell your property, and leave a country where
such injustice is tolerated. But your wife's law-
yer, whom you have paid, has been too smart
for that. You forget about the injunction which
had been entered, which prevents your parting
with any of your property; and when you decline
to pay the alimony allowed, the jail again closes
upon you. Now just read over again that statute,
and you will appreciate what it means, and what
position you really occupy in this modern con-
struction of society. With such a threatening
danger as that hanging over him, even a brave
man is apt to be unnerved when he considers the
trouble which might be brought upon him at any
time by her from whom he had expected his

HUSBAND AND WIFE in

greatest comfort and pleasure. And when this
trouble comes it is real trouble, — so real that
it is often extinguished in the blood of all the
parties to the suit.

The husband in this proceeding is reduced, we
might say, to his lowest expression. Weak and
contemptible as is his position in many respects
in regard to this relation, it is nowhere so pitiful
as here. A few extracts taken from the daily
papers will show the application of these rules :

"Judge L., in the Circuit Court of

County, yesterday signed a decree granting Mrs.
X. Y. Z. temporary alimony of twenty dollars a
month, pending her suit against X. Y. Z. for
divorce. The court not only orders Z. to pay
the monthly sum for the support of his wife and
child, Y. Z., but he is also directed to pay, within
a reasonable time, the sum of fifty dollars to C.
W. and I., attorneys for his wife, with permission
to the attorneys to apply for an increase of this
allowance if the circumstances of the case justify

an increase."

uTwo divorces were granted yesterday in the
City Circuit Court. A. B. C. was released from
the bonds of matrimony with his wife, B. C.
They were married in 1876 and lived together
until 1896, when the plaintiff alleged his wife
deserted him because he refused to give her a
deed to their home. They have six children."
"X. Y. Z. was granted a divorce from her
husband, Z., who is required to pay one-fourth

H2 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

of his net earnings for the support of their two
children, who are left in the custody of the
mother."

"Wheeling, W. Va., January 28.— Mrs. A. B.
C., wife of A. B. C., whom she was charged with
attempting to poison, was released on her own
recognizance by Judge J. in the Criminal Court
to-day, the bail being left at ten thousand dollars.

"A few minutes before, she had been served
with papers in a divorce action filed by her hus-
band in which it was stated that application would
be made February 4 for an injunction to restrain
her from communicating with or harassing her
husband or from interfering in any way with her
children, X. and Y., or from entering their house
on the island. A counter suit for divorce is being
prepared by Mrs. C.'s counsel, and the papers,
it is said, will be served early next week. Since
A. B. C. neglected to announce that he would
not be responsible for the debts contracted by
his wife, it is held that he will be called upon to
pay the costs of the late trial, about one hundred
thousand dollars."

"When Mrs. X. Y. secured a divorce from
X. Y., of Fairmount Park, on December 20
last, on the grounds of cruelty, Y. was ordered
by the court to pay the fee of his wife's counsel,
C. P. F., amounting to twenty-five dollars. At-
torney F. has informed the Court that Y. has
not paid this fee, and a rule was issued against

HUSBAND AND WIFE 113

Y. yesterday in the Circuit Court of Norfolk
County, requiring him to show cause on February
20 why he should not be punished for contempt
of court."

Where these fees and allowances for support
are small sums, as in the particular cases given,
one can tell at once that the parties to the suit
are poor people. Let a rich man be before the
court, and the amounts will be very different.
Judges are but human, and it is easy to be liberal
in giving away another person's means.

What an encouragement to divorce is found in
the statement just issued that X. has settled a
million on his divorced wife. He appears to have
been the plaintiff in the suit for divorce, and so
the settlement of this sum may have been of his
own choice; but it helps to form a standard by
which courts may be influenced in arriving at
amounts to be decreed in cases where the wife
brings the suit. It was bad enough in the past,
when a man was married merely for his money.
But now he may be married for his money in a
much truer sense than ever before. One case has
been heard of where a woman married a man
with the deliberate purpose of afterward quar-
relling with him, and obtaining a decree for ali-
mony. The temptation to do this increases stead-
ily with the progress of the movement here dis-
cussed.

A poor or unfortunate man under the new

ii4 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

"progressive" ideas embodied in the recent acts
of legislation may be put in jail for non-support.
The man of average means can be driven from
his home and still compelled to support it. The
rich man can be plundered.

It was said a few days ago in the papers that
the clinging type of woman was becoming rarer.
Of course everybody knows what is meant by the
word clinging, — the dear, sweet women that men
can love and trust, and who are fulfilling the
duties which are naturally theirs as the helpmeets
of their husbands. Under existing rules, is there
any wonder that they are becoming rarer? The
question may be asked, how long will it be before
they vanish altogether?

Women are what men choose to make them.
The woman of the past, who was a friend to
man, was so made by the rules of society formu-
lated by men. The woman of the future may be
anything but a friend to man. Developed ac-
cording to rules which she may desire to lay
down, she may become his competitor, his rival,
his opponent, in the outside world, and in his
home the source of vexation and misery untold.

In a general way up to very recently the ap-
proved attitude of men toward women was that
of protection. The attitude of women toward
men was that of allegiance to them as the heads
of their families; and, partly in fair exchange for
the labor and care expended by the men in their
behalf, they were taught and they expressed a

HUSBAND AND WIFE 115

desire to save and please them. Mutual good
will and the exchange of good offices resulted.
Each, working in different fields supplementary
to each other, helped the other. What shall be
said of the work of the agitators who seek to
change this harmony into discord, and to set the
units of society, now amicably cooperative, into
antagonism and strife among themselves over an
issue which need never have been raised?

CHAPTER VIII

Marriage is still respected in Virginia. Di-
vorce is on the increase. It is talked and jested
about, and the stage makes a great noise over
it, but among the upper classes it is nearly an
unknown thing. The people who get divorces
are people who, as a rule, are not socially promi-
nent, most likely persons who have recently
moved to our State. This is due, of course,
mainly to the laws of Virginia on this subject,
which, while they allow divorces for several
causes, most of the causes are so rare that in
practical application they amount to nothing.
Only the more serious grounds are acted on with
us. Such should always be the case. If any
change ought to be made in our laws, it should
be in the way of repeal of some of the grounds
now allowed, not in the addition of others.

Above all things, we want no "uniform
divorce law," applying to all the States. The
people who urge that sort of thing are the peo-
ple who have no regard for the sovereignty of the
States. We already have a uniform divorce
law. The law on this subject in Virginia is uni-
form over the whole territory of Virginia. If Mis-
souri or Nevada choose to enact bad laws on

lie

HUSBAND AND WIFE 117

this subject, that is their error, not ours. If
anything on this subject were proposed, it would
be in the nature of a resultant of the conflicting
views of many States with laws much worse than
ours; and the effect would probably be to leave
ours in a worse state than they now are. This
matter of marriage and divorce is one of the
highest possible expressions of the full power
of the several States to legislate as they deem
best; and they would act most unwisely if they
were practically to delegate this important part of
their rights to Congress, or even to a majority
of themselves. It is better policy for the State
of Virginia to keep out of this movement for
uniformity on any and all subjects. We have
much more to lose than to gain by it. The plan
will always be to have us adopt the views of
some one else. If they desire uniformity, they
can copy our statutes. They can get in that way
a uniformity we would not object to. South
Carolina allows no divorce. We doubt if that
would be the uniform law which the Western
States would want. No more do we really want
their laws. Because the men in the West have
torn the domestic relations to pieces is no good
reason why we in the East and South should do
the same.

Indeed, it is scarcely too much to say that,
modeled on the basis of these recent laws, this
institution is no longer Christian marriage. It

n 8 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

is opposed to the teachings of the New Testa-
ment and the Church as well as to the experi-
ence and judgment of mankind since the dawn of
history.

In discussing this subject, which is as broad
as the scattered habitations of the race, as deep
as human nature, and as old as mankind, — a re-
lation fraught with all the possibilities which can
affect the life of man or woman, — it should not
be lost sight of that it has ever, even at best,
been regarded by thinking men of antiquity as
well as those of the present day as being beset
with inherent difficulties.

Even under the former system of law, by which
order was recognized as essential and so was se-
cured, or at least attempted to be secured as
far as possible by the rules which regulated it,
marriage has been presented to us as a more or
less difficult relation. Here is what has been said
of it by some of the thinkers of the race :

Solomon says: "It is better to dwell in the
wilderness than with a contentious and an angry
woman." And again: "It is better to dwell in
the corner of the housetop than with a brawling
woman and in a wide house." And still again :
"For three things the earth is disquieted,
for an odious woman when she is mar-
ried."

Socrates, being asked whether it were better
to marry or not, replied: "Whichever you do,
you will repent it."

HUSBAND AND WIFE 119

Plutarch preserves a saying of Pittacus:
"Every one of you hath his particular plague,
and my wife is mine; and he is happy who hath
this only."

"He (Thales) was reputed one of the wise
men that made answer to the question when a
man should marry; a young man not yet, an
elder man not at all." — Bacon.

"There is scarcely a lawsuit unless a woman
is the cause of it." — Juvenal.

"Is not marriage an open question," asks Mon-
taigne, "when it is alleged, from the beginning of
the world, that such as are in the institution wish
to get out, and such as are out wish to get in?"

"Marriage and hanging go by destiny," says
Burton.

"Oh, curse of marriage, that we can call these
delicate creatures ours, and not their appetites,"
says Shakespeare.

"Marriage is a desperate thing," says Selden.

"The reason why so few marriages are happy
is because young ladies spend their time in mak-
ing nets, not in making cages." — Swift.

"Thus grief still treads upon the heels of
pleasure, Married in haste, we may repent at
leisure," remarks William Congreve.

Bacon says: "He that hath wife and children
hath given hostages to fortune; for they are im-
pediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or
mischief."

120 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

Balzac has much to say on this subject. "Mar-
riage must incessantly contend with a monster
which devours everything, that is, familiarity.'*
"Marriage is a science. A man ought not to
marry without having studied anatomy, and dis-
sected at least one woman." uTo contend ad-
vantageously with the tempest which so many
attractions tend to raise in the heart of his wife,
a husband ought to possess, besides the science of
pleasure and a fortune which saves him from sink-
ing, . . . robust health, exquisite tact, consid-
erable intellect, too much good sense to make his
superiority felt, excepting on fit occasions, and
finally great acuteness of hearing and sight.
Even when equipped with these ad-
vantages, a husband enters the lists with scarcely
any hope of success."

" 'Early marriages were misery; imprudent
marriages idiotism, and marriage at the best/ he
was wont to say, with a kindling eye, and a
heightened color, 'marriage at the best, — was the
devil.' " — Lytton.

"Marriage — monotony multiplied by two," ac-
cording to George Meredith.

"Wedlock's a saucy, sad, familiar state,
Where folks are very apt to scold and hate."

— Pindar.

"Courtship to marriage is a very witty pro-
logue to a very dull play." — Congreve.
"Marriage is a desperate thing. The frogs in

HUSBAND AND WIFE 121

were extremely wise; they had a mind to
some water, but they would not leap into a well
because they could not get out again."

— John Selden.

"Marriage is a step so grave and decisive that
it attracts light-headed, variable men by its very
awfulness." — R. L. Stevenson.

"It's the silliest lie a sensible man like you
ever believed, to say a woman makes a house
comfortable." — George Eliot.

"Marriage is a field of battle, and not a bed
of roses." — Stevenson.

"What courage can withstand the ever-dur-
ing and all-besetting terrors of a woman's
tongue?" — Irving.

"Death itself, to the reflecting mind, is less
serious than marriage." — Landor.

"Debt leads man to wed, and marriage leads to
debt." —Kipling.

"After forty, men have married their habits,
and wives are only an item in the list, and not the
most important." — George Meredith.

"A second marriage is the triumph of hope
over experience." — Dr. Johnson.

"Marriage is a feast where the grace is some-
times better than the dinner." — Colton.

"Needles and pins, needles and pins,

When a man marries, his trouble begins."

—Old Proverb.

"There is probably no other act of a man's

122 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

life so hot-headed and foolhardy as this one of
marriage." — Stevenson.

"They saw two men by the roadside sit,
And they both bemoaned their lot,
For one had buried his wife, he said,
And the other one had not." — John Hay.
"They (the men) know they are only human
after all; they know what gins and pitfalls lie
about their feet, and how the shadow of matri-
mony waits resolute and awful at the crossroads.
They would wish to keep their liberty, but that
may not be ; God's will be done." — Stevenson.

"If marriage licenses were sold with a return
coupon ticket attached, and there were a stop-
over station anywhere in the early stages of the
journey, few would make the through trip."

— Dorothy Dix.

"Idleness, which is often becoming, and even
wise in a bachelor, begins to wear a different
aspect when you have a wife to support."

— Stevenson.

"What they do in Heaven we are ignorant of;
what they do not, we are told expressly; they
neither marry nor are given in marriage."

—Swift.

"To be without a wife . . . would be
about as conducive to happiness as to be dead.
Negative happiness, very negative. Negative
happiness is better than positive discomfort."

— F. Marion Crawford.

HUSBAND AND WIFE 123

. "Marriage from love, like vinegar from wine,
A sad, sour, sober beverage. "

— Byron.
uHo ! pretty page, of the dimpled chin,

All you wish is woman to win;
This is the way that boys begin.
Wait till you come to forty years."

— Thackeray.

"Marriage is so unlike everything else. There
is something even awful in the nearness it
brings." — George Eliot.

"Honest men marry young, wise men never."

—Old Proverb.

"It is very beautiful to be in love, but it is
a great relief to be out of it." — R. W. St. Hill.

"Oh! how many torments lie
In the small circle of a wedding ring."

— Colley Gibber.

"Marriage, which is the bourne of so many
narratives, is still a great beginning, as it was
to Adam and Eve, who kept their honeymoon
in Eden, but had their first little son among the
thorns and thistles of the wilderness."

— George Eliot.

"I consulted him of marriage; he tells me of
hanging, as if they went by one and the same
destiny." — Ben Jonson.

"The life of an intelligent bachelor is very
well worth living." -Max O'Rell.

"Woman has always managed to make man
provide for her; . . . under the pretext of

i24 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

giving him the upper hand, she has left him all
the anxiety and responsibility."

— John Davidson.

"I'd rather be married in October than any
other time of the year, if I've got to be. It's
kind of melancholy then, and one sees everything
goin' to pieces, and don't mind what he does."
— Hezekiah Butterworth.
" 'Well, Madeline, so I'm going to be mar-
ried,' Bertie began.

" 'There's no other foolish thing left that you
haven't done,' said Madeline, 'and therefore you
are quite right to try that.' ' — Trollope.

"A young man married is a man that's
marred." — Shakespeare.

"A bachelor

May thrive by observation on a little,
A single life's no burden; but to draw
In yokes is chargeable, and will require
A double maintenance."

— John Ford.

"Times are changed with him who marries;
there are no more by-path meadows, wherein you
may innocently linger, but the road lies long and
straight and dusty to the grave." — Stevenson.

" 'I know not,' said the princess, 'whether mar-
riage be more than one of the innumerable modes
of human misery.' ' — Dr. Johnson.

"Make 'im take 'er, an' keep 'er; that's Hell
for 'em both." — Kipling.

"When we are born our mothers will take

HUSBAND AND WIFE 125

care of us, and when we die our Father will
take care of us. But when we marry we must
take care of ourselves and another besides."

— Lavinia Hart.
"Pleasant the snaffle of courtship; improving the

manners and carriage;

But the colt who is wise will abstain from the
terrible thorn-bit of marriage."

— Kipling.

"If ever you feel disposed, Samivel, to go
a-marrying anybody — no matter who — just you
shut yourself up in your own room, if you've got
one, and poison yourself offhand." — Dickens.

"Once you are married there is nothing left
for you, not even suicide, but to be good."

— Stevenson.

"Ne'er take a wife till thou hast a house, (and
a fife) to put her in." — Poor Richard.

"It's an impious, unscriptural opinion to say
a woman's a blessing to a man now."

—George Eliot.

"The moment a woman marries, some terrible
revolution happens in her system; all her good
qualities vanish, presto, like eggs out of a con-
juror's box. 'Tis true that they appear on the
other side of the box, but for the husband they
are gone forever." — Bulwer.

"An object in possession seldom retains the
same charm it had in pursuit," says Pliny the
Elder.

"The gout is a disease as arises from too much

126 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

ease and comfort. If ever you're attacked with
the gout, Sir, just you marry a widow as has got
a good loud voice, with a decent notion of usin'
it, and you'll never have the gout again. It's
a capital prescription, Sir; I takes it reg'lar, Sir,
and I can warrant it to drive away any illness as
is caused by too much jollity." — Dickens.

Stevenson, after some very severe observations
intended to show that women may be at heart
very different from what their fair exteriors and
ordinary habits would indicate, concludes by say-
ing that the doctrine "of the excellence of women,
however chivalrous, is cowardly as well as false.
It is better to face the fact, and know, when you
marry, that you take into your life a creature of
equal, if of unlike frailties; whose weak human
heart beats no more tunefully than yours."

History abundantly proves the truth of this
conclusion. Along with the host of bright and
shining women, whose characters have adorned
the annals of the race, and who have been an
inspiration to the generations which followed
them, there has been a vast number of other
women, who have been as bad, as unwise,
and as dangerous political leaders as any one
could be. Now, the men have to live with the
one class as well as with the other. The laws
should therefore be so conceived as to ensure
a reasonable modus vivendi as to all. They are
now apparently drawn on the theory that the men
are all bad and the women all good.

HUSBAND AND WIFE 127

A few conspicuous and well-known examples
will suffice for illustration to show that such has
never been, and is not now, the case. Consider
then:

Rebekah, wife of Isaac, who, a good woman
and wife in other respects, yet planned the fraud
which was practiced upon him, by which he was
led to bestow upon Jacob the blessing which be-
longed to Esau.

The wife of Potiphar, captain of Pharoah's
guard, who so unjustly caused the disgrace and
the imprisonment of Joseph.

Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, King of Israel, who
murdered Naboth, in order to take his vineyard
from him, and who slew the prophets of the
Lord.

Herodias, the wife of Herod, tetrarch of
Galilee, who had John the Baptist beheaded, be-
cause he denounced the life of sin in which she
was living.

Helen, wife of Menelaus, King of Sparta,
whose elopement with Paris, the son of Priam,
King of Troy, brought on the war which ended
in the destruction of that city.

Clytemnestra, the unfaithful wife of Agamem-
non, King of Mycenae, who murdered him upon
his return from Troy.

Medea, daughter of the King of the Colchians,
and wife of Jason, who, from jealousy, murdered
Creusa ; and plotted against the life of Theseus.

The wife of Polydectes, King of Sparta, who

128 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

after the death of her husband proposed to
Lycurgus, his younger brother, the heir apparent
to the throne, to destroy the life of her unborn
child, on condition that he would marry her, and
allow her to share the kingdom with him.

The stepmother of Croesus, who gave poison
to the breadmaker so that her stepson might die,
and be removed from the succession of his father's
throne, in order that one of her children might
reign. The faithful breadmaker, however, gave
the poison to the queen's own children instead.

Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great,
who is believed to have been instrumental in the
assassination of her husband, Philip, King of
Macedon, and who, to satisfy her rage against
her dead opponent, Antipater, murdered Nicanor,
his son, and about a hundred of his relatives and
friends. She even tore from the tomb the dead
body of another son, in order to dishonor it, and
then murdered Philip, Alexander's half-brother,
and his wife, Eurydice.

Tarpeia, who agreed to betray the city of Rome
to the Sabines for the sake of their bracelets and
rings. They threw their shields upon her instead,
and killed her.

Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, who murdered her
brother, caused her sister to be put to death, and
lived with Caesar and Anthony in open infamy.

Agrippina, the wife of the emperor Claudius,
who poisoned her husband, in order to raise her
son, Nero, to the throne.

HUSBAND AND WIFE 129

Lucretia Borgia, the sister of Caesar Borgia,
who has been credited, or discredited, with nearly
every offense which a woman could commit.

The sister of Kenelm, the Anglo-Saxon King,
for whom she was acting as regent, who had him
murdered in order to possess herself of his
throne.

Mary, Queen of Scots, who consented to the
murder of her husband, Darnley, and then mar-
ried his assassin.

The Princess Sophia, of Russia, who attempted
the assassination of her half-brother, Peter the
Great, in order to retain the power which she en-
joyed under the reign of her brother John. Al-
though the crown had been left to Peter, she
kept him for a while out of his kingdom, by a
revolution which caused the death of many per-
sons, and then tried to kill him.

Catharine II, of Russia, who with the aid of
her lover dethroned her husband, then probably
murdered him, and shocked the world with her
vices.

Isabella, Queen of Castile, wife of Ferdinand,
King of Aragon, who, although an exemplary
woman in most respects, yet authorized the es-
tablishment of, and maintained, what we know as
the Spanish Inquisition, one of the grossest abuses
which ever disgraced or afflicted humanity, and
which condemned men to unheard of tortures and
death, because of religious belief. Persons were
even convicted after their death, and their

130 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

bodies torn from their graves and burnt with the
living. The wars which grew out of this perse-
cution convulsed Europe for a century.

Margaret of Anjou, wife of Henry VI, of Eng-
land, who, although a good wife and mother,
showed in the hour of her triumph, after the
battle of Wakefield, such cruelty and ferocity
toward her enemies as to cause the revival and
continuation of the War of the Roses, which
devastated the land.

Catharine de Medici, mother of Charles IX, of
France, who, besides other enormities, instigated
the perpetrators of the massacre of St. Bartholo-
mew, during which one hundred thousand persons
were murdered.

The Marchioness de Pompadour and the Coun-
tess du Barry, the mistresses of Louis XV, who
were, possibly, as much responsible as any other
two persons for sowing the seeds which brought
upon France its revolution.

Marie Antoinette, the wife of Louis XVI, of
France, who was noble and brave to the highest
degree, and a good mother and wife, but who,
by her many indiscretions, want of tact, and lack
of judgment, made herself the storm-center and
chief object of the hatred of the populace, and
more than any other one person, was the cause
of this revolution, the most appalling calamity
which is recorded on the pages of history, and
which involved Europe in wars which lasted a
generation.

HUSBAND AND WIFE 131

The knitting women who sat at the foot of the
guillotine, and gloated over the deluge of blood
poured out during this French revolution.

Let not the distance in point of time, nor the
remoteness of the countries in which many of
these women lived diminish the significance of
their actions. Time and place have little or no
effect in changing human nature. Ambition, pas-
sion, hatred, avarice, selfishness, love, and jeal-
ousy are primordial forces which have ever
swayed the human heart, and these characters il-
lustrate the power of their influence upon the
women of the world of to-day as truthfully as the
events recorded in the morning's paper.

We will stop here. The melancholy list of
course could be continued still further, and will
probably be added to by to-morrow's newspapers.

True enough, the day after the above was
written, the morning paper brought the follow-
ing:

"Paris, December 8. — The most hideous white
slave scandal in the history of Paris has been dis-
covered, according to the Prefect of Police, who
declared to-day he has evidence which proves that
more than three hundred girls, ranging from nine
to seventeen years, have been sold by their
mothers.

"V. F. G. A., and other rich men are impli-
cated, according to the police. F., now in jail,

132 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

until recently was editor of the Lantern, a gov-
ernment organ. He formerly was a friend of
ex-Premier B. and other officials, and owned
chateaus in various parts of France. The wild-
est orgies in which mere children took part are
said to have been held at F.'s beautiful dwellings."

From the days of Mother Eve down to those
of our own times the works of the evil one have
been made sadly manifest in the case of poor
sister woman as well as in that of her brother
man. The assumed attitude of superiority now
observable on the part of some women toward
men is a poor return for the consideration and
the generally indulgent and flattering attitude with
which the men of the western hemisphere have
treated their women. This element among the
women has misunderstood and abused this con-
sideration shown them, and has enlarged the
"better half" idea into thinking that they are in-
tellectually and morally man's superiors. They
have listened to words of flattery so long that it
has spoiled them, and has given them an unduly
enlarged idea of their real position in the scheme
of creation.

Viewed as a class, women are not showing off
particularly well under the new order of things.
They are losing their accomplishments together
with the softer and sweeter graces which were
formerly their own, — in short, the femininity
which made them so much admired and be-
loved,— and are substituting for it self-assertion

HUSBAND AND WIFE 133

and Amazonian qualities, which may finally cause
to perish from the earth the regard in which they
were formerly held and all the dear associations
clustering around the ideas of wife and mother
and home. It is fair for men, in considering
these things, to ask themselves whether they will
further encourage a movement which will deprive
them of the domestic happiness which once was
found in the home, and substitute for it the dis-
graceful scenes of strife and disorder which so
often are pictured on the stage, in the moving-
picture shows, in the police courts and the papers.
If the situation be bad now, it promises to be
infinitely worse with women voting.

Suppose it should get so bad that all the hus-
bands are hunted down and chased off the face
of the earth, — what then? Will we make a desert,
and call it peace? "Down with the tyrant man,"
will involve down with a good many other
things, — down with husbands, down with fathers,
down with home, down with children, down with
all domestic order. If this be an age and land of
freedom, if everybody should be released from
constraint and set at liberty, why are not these
so-called blessings to enure to the benefit of the
whole population? Why should not that very
large and important number of human beings,
known as husbands and fathers, also share in this
freedom? As matters stand they are not only not
included in it, but they are reduced to a new, but
none the less real, though refined, form of slav-

i34 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

ery. We do not believe in nor in any way advo-
cate a system of general laxity, nor the breaking
asunder of the bonds which unite families ; but we
call attention to the amazing spectacle presented
to the world of a domestic system in which the
head of the family has less rights than anybody
else.

The word slavery has not been used unad-
visedly. The severe punishment and disgrace of
being immured in the public prison, or of being in
chains, condemned to the public roads, is inflicted
on the husband who, living in a city of over fifteen
thousand inhabitants, escapes from his wife, —
that is, "leaves the city," as the statute describes
it; or, living anywhere within the State, who es-
capes from her, or "deserts" her, as the statute
calls it, she being in destitute or necessitous cir-
cumstances. The same punishment is to be inflicted
upon him if, under corresponding conditions, he
do not work for his wife, — that is, if he "neglect
to provide for the support of his wife." What
essential feature of slavery is lacking under these
conditions, except the assignabllity of the slave?
He cannot leave without being liable to arrest.
A new form of what we might call the fugitive
slave law applies to this offense. He cannot stop
working, and must work successfully, profitably
to his mistress, to prevent being arrested for non-
support. Is not the primary fact in connection
with slavery the compulsory work of one person
for the benefit of another, and is not this a severe

HUSBAND AND WIFE 135

feature of this particular form of slavery, — the
legal requirement that the work result in a profit?
All men are not employees, working for a stipu-
lated amount. Many are the independent heads
of enterprises. For all these, under such laws,
failure may mean jail. The only barrier behind
which the husband can protect himself from the
full operation of these drastic laws is an inde-
pendent fortune of his own, which, so long as it
lasts, can still secure his liberty. But, should he
lose this defense and become, like the great ma-
jority of men, dependent upon his daily work for
his support, he becomes, for the rest of his life,
or the rest of the time the marriage continues, a
slave. Even if the wife should have means of
her own, the rule in regard to cities of fifteen
thousand inhabitants takes no account of this. A
poor husband could, under this act, be imprisoned
for not supporting a wife who was rich; and they
have been so imprisoned in the West.

The duties which the husband and father owes
to those dependent upon him are thus enforced
by the government by the process of imprison-
ment. The duties they owe him are not enforci-
ble in any way. He surely does not owe them
duties, and they owe him none. Duties are cor-
relative. If wife and child have such a strong
claim upon the husband and father that his liberty
is held by the State as security for their fulfilment,
it should only be so when there exists equally
obligatory duties on their part toward him. But

136 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

here the system wholly breaks down, with the
result that, burdened with responsibilities, and
with penal statutes threatening his liberty, the
head of the family stands alone and unprotected,
everything due by him, nothing due to him, the
power of the State against him, no power in his
favor which the government will recognize. We
have called this condition one of slavery.

It is doubtful if even a carefully drawn mar-
riage contract would avail to protect the husband
from much of the effect of these recent acts. Such
an agreement might assist materially in regulat-
ing the property rights of the husband and wife,
so that the husband would be better protected;
but it would still leave him liable to be impris-
oned for violating any of these criminal pro-
visions, which, raising issues as they do between
him and the Commonwealth, could not be nullified
by private contracts between the parties. They
could, however, still do much in the way of ad-
justing dower, distributive interests, the control
of children, and, above all, alimony, a reasonable
sum for which could, in the event of a divorce, be
validly agreed to in advance. All such contracts
the courts could be called upon to uphold. At
least, this could be done until some suffragette
sat upon the bench. As to how the law would
then be construed we would not be willing to
venture an opinion.

CHAPTER IX

If marriage have proved a more or less difficult
relation in the past, when the laws lent their aid
to make of it an orderly system of domestic gov-
ernment, under these new laws which foster dis-
order it may become an impossible relation.
What would then become of our civilization?

If any one should doubt that the present con-
dition of marriage is one of the greatest disorder,
let him consider the following news items which
have recently, from time to time, appeared in
our daily papers.

"Pittsburgh, Pa., October 27. — A. B. was fined
twenty dollars this morning, with the alternative
of serving twenty days in the workhouse, because
he objected to a snoring and flea-stricken dog
sleeping between him and his wife. Mrs. B.
had called the police and ordered them to 'arrest
that brute.'

" 'The only thing I did, Judge, was to say the

d d dog is snoring, Lizzie, and I can't sleep.

Its fleas are biting me, and I have been kept busier
than a one-armed paper-hanger with the hives,
scratching myself. I gave her to understand that
no longer would I allow that dog to sleep be-
tween us.'

137

138 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

"Mrs. B. interrupted her husband. 'Your
Honor, this dog is just like a human/ she said.
'Every night when the clock strikes nine, he
crawls into bed, gets under the covers, and sleeps
just like you would.'

'"Keep me out of this, please, madam; I don't
care to be classified with a dog,' exclaimed the
Judge.

"B. was unable to pay the fine."

This meant that he got twenty days in the
workhouse for objecting in the way he did to
having this dog, full of fleas, sleeping in the bed
with him.

"Brownsville, Pa., January 8. — During a quar-
rel as to which should get up first this morning,
X., aged thirty-five years, a miner, shot and killed
his wife, Mary, and then ended his own life,
firing a bullet into his head. The couple leaves
a four-months'-old child which was asleep in the
same room at the time of the shooting."

"Mobile, Ala., December 31. — Arrested within
a few minutes after the bloody remains of her
son-in-law, Policeman Z., had been found in a
pond near the western city limits, Mrs. X. Y.
to-night made a full confession of the deed. Z.
had been shot three times, twice through the
head and once through the arm.

"The killing occurred at the home of Z. after,
according to the confession, insulting remarks

HUSBAND AND WIFE 139

were made to Mrs. Y. As a result of the insult
Mrs. Y. says she saw X.'s gun on a hall-rack,
picked it up, and returned to the room. 'I raised
the pistol, and looking him straight in the face,
pulled the trigger. I thought I would do a good
job while I was at it, so I pulled the trigger
again.'

"Subsequently Mrs. Y. took the body in a
wagon and dumped it into the pond where it was
discovered.

"Mrs. Y. has been married three times. X. Y.,
her last husband, was murdered in a manner
similar to the deed of to-day, but the grand jury
failed to indict her. Another husband, named
Q., mysteriously disappeared."

"Detroit, Mich., December 29. — Four mem-
bers of one family, all suing for divorce at the
same time, is the unique condition of domestic
affairs in the A. B. household, in the village of
Richmond, near Detroit.

"B. himself has filed a cross bill against the
suit instituted against him by his third wife,
Anna, a bride of a year, while L, his daughter,
expects a decree in her suit against X. Y. W. B.,
a son of B., has also instituted proceedings
against his wife."

"Kansas City, December 31. — X. becomes his
wife's 'star' boarder, and the divorce petition filed
against him by his wife was dismissed, by a

1 40 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

peculiar arrangement made in Judge F. D. H.'s
division of the Wyandotte county district court.

"After hearing both sides, the Judge decided
that the couple should be able to make up. Ac-
cordingly, he suggested that the husband rent the
front room of his own home, and pay his wife
three dollars a week for his board and room, and
a lump sum in addition of twenty-five dollars a
month.

"In return the wife is to lavish all the care and
consideration upon her husband that she would
on a 'star' boarder, and the Judge expects the
cooking of the 'landlady' and her kind attention
to do the work of a divorce proctor.

"X. is a railroad employee and lives in Rose-
dale. His wife's petition charged neglect."

On a par with that, is the following:
"Wilmington, N. C., April 6.— The New Han-
over county commissioners have hired Z., a white
man, to his wife for six months, Z. requesting
that arrangement rather than to serve this period
on the county roads, to which he was sentenced
yesterday from the recorder's court on a charge
of non-support. The judgment was so worded as
to give the commissioners power to hire Z. out.
His wife, who caused his arrest, was about the
only one that wanted him, and she got him."

"New York, September 30. — Mrs. X. Y., out
for a walk, met her husband, who for three years

HUSBAND AND WIFE 141

she had believed dead. In a panic he fled. She
outran him, however, and turned him over to the
police."

"San Francisco, August 2. — Unable, she said,
to 'make a man' of her husband, X., a frail
woman, nineteen years old, to-day shot and killed
him. They had been married fifteen months.

"Early to-day X. left home, saying he did not
intend to return. Mrs. X. bought a revolver and
started to hunt her husband. She found him in
a saloon. According to bystanders, X. turned on
her with a torrent of abuse. Without a word, the
wife fired four shots. One struck X. and he died
on the way to the hospital. Mrs. X. was ar-
rested.

' 'I do not see why I should be detained/ she
said at the city prison. 'I did nothing wrong and
I am not sorry. Since our marriage I have sup-
ported my husband and myself by working as a
stenographer. I tried to make him stay away
from saloons. I endured his abuse. I tried to
instil some ambition into him and coached him
for the fireman's civil service examination. He
would not try. I could endure no more.' '

"Kansas City, Mo., August 10. — A husband
can be too affectionate and too poetical, according
to the testimonies of Mrs. Z., who was granted
a divorce in the Circuit Court here to-day.

" 'Too much poetry, too many kisses, too much

142 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

love, too many smiles, and too little work make an
unfit husband,' she said. Mrs. Z. said that when
she married ten years ago she was temporarily
blinded by love and a deluge of poetry.

" 'He was positively irresistible, but he would
not work, Judge. When our last cent was gone
he went to South Carolina, where he has an
uncle, who, he said, had money and liked poetry
and wine too.' '

"Chicago, September 16. — A. B., a piano
manufacturer, told Municipal Judge N. to-day
that last night's was the first quiet sleep he had
had in the thirteen years he had been married.
He was in jail.

" 'We had been having a spat,' he told the
court. 'My wife said she would call the police.
Anything to please her, I told her. I'll call them
myself.'

"When B. reached the police station there were
half a dozen relatives waiting to bail him out, but
the husband refused.

' 'It was the first time I ever got the best of
my wife,' he said. Td rather go to jail than
listen to a woman, wouldn't you?'

"Judge N. did not answer, and B. added, 'Oh,
well, you don't know my wife.' '

How meaningless, under such a system, become
the beautiful lines of Cowper:

HUSBAND AND WIFE 143

"Domestic happiness, thou only bliss
Of Paradise that has survived the fall."

"Benton, Ark., December 27. — Despondent,
according to a note found to-day, X., prosperous
farmer and merchant, clubbed his wife, five chil-
dren, and stepson to death at his home near Ben-
ton last night, and then hanged himself.

"X.'s body was found suspended from a rafter
in a barn and those of the woman and children
were found at the dwelling, their skulls crushed.

"H. X., a sixteen-year-old son, made the grew-
some discovery when he returned from a holiday
celebration on a neighboring farm.

"The note explains that 'Owing to deep despair
and that I see nothing for me or my children, who
I believe would be better off in heaven, I commit
this act.' '

"Chicago, November 28. — Mrs. Z. was shot
and fatally wounded by her divorced husband to-
day as she was preparing a Thanksgiving Day
dinner for her five young children. Z. then failed
in an attempt to commit suicide.

"Mrs. Z. was at a delicatessen store near her
home when her former husband called. Unaware
of his presence she returned with her arms full of
dainties for the dinner.

" 'Are you going to invite me to your dinner?'
asked the former husband.

i44 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

" 'No, I'm not,' replied Mrs. Z. The children
are all I want. This is going to be a happy
party/

"Z. then drew a revolver and fired three times.
One of the bullets struck her in the head.

"Z. then turned the revolver on himself. He
fired into his neck, but surgeons said the wound
would not cause death."

"Seattle, Wash., March 29. — The following
advertisement appeared in the 'Help Wanted'
columns of an afternoon paper yesterday:

'"Wanted: A man to thrash a wife-beater;
ten dollars reward; easy work, Mrs. X., 116 N.
Avenue.'

"Eight men applied for the job soon after the
paper was on the street. The first applicant was
a little fellow, and Mrs. X. sent him away. The
second, a big, husky youth, said it would be a
pleasure to do the work for five dollars. Mrs.
X. engaged him at once and gave him instruc-
tions. Her husband must not be permanently
disfigured or disabled, but must be slapped,
choked, knocked down, and rolled on the floor.

"When X., formerly a water front broker, re-
turned home late in the afternoon Mrs. X. and
her 'beater' were waiting for him. Mrs. X. tell-
ing the story to-day said her young man's work
was so excellent that she compelled him to take
the full ten-dollar fee.

"X. could not be seen to-day. He is fifty-three
years of age, and his wife is about the same age.

HUSBAND AND WIFE 145

They have been married ten years. Before ad-
vertising, Mrs. X. had complained to the mayor,
chief of police, and prosecuting attorney, without
satisfactory results, she says."

"Dalton, Ga., December 9, 1912. — Despite
the efforts of his daughter to secure possession
of the shotgun, Z., aged seventy-five, shot and
killed his son, H. Z., near here to-day. Since
separating from his wife two months ago Z. is
said to have ordered his son to stay away from
the father's residence. The killing resulted when
H. Z. entered the home to-day. Z. is a Con-
federate veteran. He is under arrest charged with
murder."

Killing the children is not confined to the hus-
band:

"Fort Smith, Ark., December 28. — In a fit of
insanity resulting, it is believed, from the reading
of wild west and detective stories, Mrs. X.,
twenty-six years old, to-day with an axe crushed
the heads of her two children, A., two years old,
and B., four months old, killing them instantly.
The crazed mother then cut her throat with a
razor. She died to-night."

"New York, August i. — 'You bet your life I'll
be the boss.'

"Mrs. A. B., eighteen years old, a prepossess-
ing bride of three weeks, flung this answer to her

146 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

husband's complaint before Magistrate H., in the
Brooklyn police court and stamped her foot when
she said it.

"A., exhibiting a cut over the eye and one be-
hind the ear, had his wife in court on a summons
to show cause why she should not be charged with
assaulting him. He said he just couldn't stand his
wife's abuse. 'She wants to be the boss,' he said.

" 'Yes, and you bet your life I'll be the boss,'
broke in Mrs. A. 'I'll not take orders from you
nor any other man, so there!'

"Magistrate H. placed the couple in charge of
the probation officer."

What a contrast such a scene presents to the
ideal portrayed by Campbell :

"Their home knew but affection's looks and speech,
A little Heaven, above dissension's reach."

"Worcester, Mass., November 20. — A grocery
clerk of Worcester, X., killed his wife and a baby
of four months, then killed himself, some time
last night.

"Two other children, a little girl of thirteen
years, and her sister, ten years of age, found this
morning, on rising, a note written by their father,
in which he explained to them the tragedy.

"The two little girls attempted to go into the
chamber of their parents, but the door being
locked, they could not get in. They then called
the neighbors, who broke open the door.

HUSBAND AND WIFE 147

"A doctor, who was called at once, found that
the parents and the child had died from inhaling
chloroform. X., who was thirty-eight years of
age, had been employed by the same house for
more than twenty years. They think that he took
his fatal resolution because of dissensions in his
household."

"Richmond, Va., December 9, 1912. — Rather
than pay his wife six dollars a week as he was
ordered recently to do when arraigned in police
court on the charge of deserting her, X. Y. Z.,
grocer, twenty-seven years old, blew out his brains
with a revolver early to-day in a stable in the
eastern section of the city.

"Besides his wife, he is survived by a baby
boy."

"Chicago, 111., April 28. — A wife has a right to
rob her husband, according to a decision of Judge
Gemmill, in the Municipal Court yesterday.

"X. had his wife arrested for taking money by
force.

" 'My wife robbed me right in my own home/
said X. 'She got a boarder and her brother to
help hold me. Then she went through my pockets
and got eleven dollars.'

"Mrs. X. was led up in front of the court's
desk. 'Did you rob him?'

1 'Yes, I did,' she said. 'There was no other
way to get money out of him. He hasn't given

148 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

me a cent for over a year. So I decided to rob
him. I called my brother and we held him and I
got what was in his pockets.'

c 'This is a plain case of robbery, but it was
perfectly justifiable under the circumstances,' said
the court. 'The defendant is discharged. A wife
has the right to hold up her husband when he
squanders his wages and don't give her enough
for her support.' '

"New Haven, Conn., March 15. — That Mrs.
Z. shot and killed her husband at their home in
Branford on March 8, their ten-year-old son X.
on the day following, and then inflicted wounds
upon herself, as a result of which she died on
March 13, was the finding of the coroner, made
public to-day.

"The coroner says his investigation developed
that on March 7 Mr. Z. became aware that 'his
wife was indebted in large amounts to a dry goods
establishment in New Haven, and also that she
had incurred debts to a considerable amount to
other parties, and that he had expressed his dis-
approval of her conduct in this respect.

"The report says that Mrs. Z., fearing ex-
posure or criminal proceedings, secured a re-
volver and shot her husband in the head, caus-
ing instant death. The following day she shot
her son X. while he lay in bed, and then turned
the revolver on herself."

"Asheville, N. C., (News-Gazette). — About

HUSBAND AND WIFE 149

the only interesting case on the docket, and one
with a human interest side and withal amusing,
had to do with a charge against a citizen of
Madison for abandonment and failure to sup-
port his wife. The defendant went into court
unrepresented by counsel; the wife made her
statement under oath; the defendant when asked
by the court if he had any evidence in rebuttal,
any witnesses, replied, No ; neither did he care to
go on the stand, that he guessed what had been
testified to was about the fact. Judge Justice,
however, directed an attorney to represent the
man, but his efforts to induce the defendant to
put up any defense was a complete failure. The
defendant was told that the judge might send
him to the chain-gang, but even this prospective
dire punishment failed to impress the alleged
wife-deserter. In an effort to arouse interest in
his unresponsive client the attorney went at him
with a hot shot, — in effect that the judge might
send the defendant to the penitentiary for a term
of five years; that abandonment and failure to
provide support was a mighty serious thing. At
this the defendant manifested a bit of interest,
but of a different sort from what might have
been expected. His face sort of brightened, and
in reply he said something to this effect, 'Well,
by gad, I'd rather go to the penitentiary for five
years than to have to live with that woman/

"That was a clincher and all effort at defense
was abandoned. The man was of course con-

150 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

victed, but Judge J. tempered punishment with
mercy; he neither sent the man to the peniten-
tiary nor back to live with the wife. Provision
was made that the man pay unto his wife every
month >a stipulated sum, and that they be allowed
to live apart."

"New York, March 10. — 'When I married
X.,' said Mrs. X. to-day in the police court, 'he
promised to provide for me, and last night his
pay envelope was thirty cents short.' Mrs. X.
is a bride of eight days. Although she has a
personal bank account of one thousand dollars
which she refuses to share with X., she hauled
him into court on representations that he had
treated her cruelly.

" 'X. makes twenty dollars a week/ she con-
tinued, 'and I want every cent of it. If he needs
anything I'll get it for him. I know what's due
a wife and that's why I brought him here.'

''Suppose your husband wants a cigar?' sug-
gested the magistrate.

" Til buy it for him,' replied Mrs. X. firmly."

"New Orleans, March 25. — B., fifty, a wealthy
society leader here, shot and fatally wounded his
wife to-day, seriously wounded his daughter A.,
fourteen, and a six-year-old son, and then killed
himself.

"The quarrel that led up to the tragedy is
said to have occurred Thursday night. Z., presi-

HUSBAND AND WIFE 151

dent of the F. P. Company, a son-in-law of B.,
is said to have refused jestingly to permit B. to
accompany the family to a theater.

"B. left in a rage and when the family re-
turned is said to have fired at them, but no one
was hurt. The community was aroused by the
screams of the B. family and the sounds of the
shots."

"In granting a separation to Mrs. A., of
Mount Vernon, from her husband, A., with three
hundred dollars monthly alimony, Supreme Court
Justice M. gave it as his opinion that it is not
enough for a man to provide well for his wife
and be kind sometimes. He intimated that a hus-
band should always be considerate. He said:

' 'The plaintiff is a frail, sensitive, and nervous
woman; the defendant is a strong, healthy, vigor-
ous man, with a violent temper. In language and
manner he was at times rough and harsh, al-
though after these acts he was kind and consider-
ate. He provided for her well; he kept two serv-
ants; he was kind to her family and relatives; he
permitted one of her nieces to reside at times with
her, but his conduct toward her during her mar-
ried life was such that the plaintiff was justified
in her complaint and in bringing this action, in
which she must be sustained.' '

"Chicago, September 28. — Z., who to-day mar-
ried Miss X., sought to avoid future domestic in-

152 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

felicity by filing with the county recorder a guar-
antee to be as nearly the model husband as pos-
sible. The guarantee, signed and witnessed by a
notary, promised:

" 'She may do as she pleases. She is free to go
and come when she likes, to go with whom she
chooses, and I will not be jealous. I will not go
gunning for a fellow because he admires her
beauty, and because she smiles when he speaks to
her. I will not interfere with any of her plans.

" 'I will be kind and good to her. I will give
her all my earnings, and it will be her privilege to
do with my income as she likes, so long as she
feeds me well.

" When we have a surplus, and it goes to the
bank, I agree not to hold the keys. The checks
may be signed by either of us. I agree to come
home at a proper hour each night, or give her a
valid excuse.

" 'And I further agree that I will let her get a
divorce if I fail to behave as a kind, loving,
gentle, considerate husband should/

"When the guarantee had been duly placed on
record, the couple sought a minister and were duly
married."

"Chicago, November 6. — Sentenced to walk
the floor for two hours each night, with his baby
in his arms, was the fate of X., arraigned on

"When Judge S. saw Mrs. X., with the baby in
complaint of his wife for non-support

HUSBAND AND WIFE 153

her arms, he ordered the husband to take the
child. X. took the baby while the mother talked
with the Judge. The baby's hand stole up and
caressed the father's face. He smiled. The wife
turned to look and smiled, too.

" 'That's better,' said the Judge to X. 'X., I
sentence you to go home with your wife and walk
the floor with the baby for two hours every night
from now until December 20. Besides that, you
will turn your wages over to your wife every pay-
day. On December 20 you will come here, and
you and I will discuss the kind of Christmas pres-
ents you are to buy for your wife and baby.' '

"The law dealing with wife desertion provides
for the punishment of men 'who abandon and fail
to support their families.' The (and' is ambigu-
ous. It has been found impossible to punish men
who 'hang around' their families and live on the
hard-earned dollars of their wives and children.

"Chief Justice O. will endeavor to put an 'or'
in place of the 'and' in the law. The change is
necessary and just, for married loafers and shirk-
ers who do not abandon their families are often
worse than the deserters.

"But if the law is amended merely to provide
for the imprisonment of such loafers the poor
families will gain little or nothing. If the former
could be compelled to work for the State and their
earnings were paid to the wives a real reform
would be achieved. Such proposals have been made
at meetings of criminologists, but the difficulties in

i54 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

the way are enormous. Let us hope that the
threat of imprisonment may prove sufficiently de-
terrent. " — Chicago Record-Herald.

"San Francisco, November 25. — Judge G. has
divorced A. B. from B. The hookworm was the
cause.

" 'My husband was dull, stupid, lazy, languid,
slow,' said Mrs. B.

" 'He must have been a victim of the hook-
worm,' said the court.

"Mrs. B. expressed some doubt as to this diag-
nosis, but Judge G. stuck to his opinion and
granted the decree."

Another reported case contained this gem :

"What's the charge in this case?" asked the
judge.

"That's just what I'm waiting to find out, your
Honor," replied the prisoner. "I had the satis-
faction of hittin' that woman who's been the
plague of my life these ten years, under the name
of wife, and I'm willing to pay any charge in
reason."

See how differently these cases are decided
when they are appealed to the higher courts,
where the judges better appreciate the effect of
their decisions. But the mere fact of a wife's hav-
ing brought such a suit as the following shows
the demoralized state of the feminine mind on
this subject:

HUSBAND AND WIFE 155

New York, October 4. — "This is the first case
I ever heard of where a woman brings an annul-
ment suit because her husband is not making
enough money," said Supreme Court Justice K.
as he refused a decree to Mrs. Z., in her suit
against her husband, X. Z.

"Mrs. Z. lives with her mother. She was mar-
ried in Passaic, N. J., in July, 1908. She testi-
fied that her husband joined the (army after she
had lived with him about two months. She said
he was willing to support her, but was away a
great deal, and his income was inadequate to take
care of a wife. Incidentally, she said, she was
under age at the time of the marriage.

' 'Marriage would be a farce if I granted an
annulment on this evidence/ said Justice K."

"Chicago, December 26. — The death penalty
will be asked in the case of Mrs. Y., who to-day
was placed on trial charged with slaying her hus-
band, Y., June 10, last.

"The jury was completed in two hours, break-
ing all recent records in murder cases in Cook
County. All of the jurymen said they would in-
flict the death penalty if they thought the evidence
warranted it.

"Mrs. Y. will plead self-defense. She alleges
her husband abused her while intoxicated."

"Norfolk, December 27. — In a frenzy pre-
cipitated by remonstrances when he stamped a

156 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

vase of flowers which had fallen from the mantel
shelf in their home in P Street, South Norfolk,
X., twenty-eight years old, an employee of the
E. K. Mills, shot and severely wounded his wife
Christmas Day. His wife is five years his junior.
They have two children."

"San Francisco, January 13. — Y., son of a
wealthy Brooklyn family, shot and killed his wife,
X. Y., well known in society here, as she sat at
dinner with other members of the family to-night.
He then shot and fatally wounded himself.

"The couple had been married seven months,
and until a short time ago had been leaders in the
smart circle, in which Mrs. Y.'s family held a
high place. She was nineteen years old and her
husband six years older.

"For two months the young couple lived with
Mrs. Z., the wealthy grandmother of Mrs. Y., in
P. Avenue. According to members of the family,
Y. and his wife quarreled ten days ago, and the
young husband left the house in a rage.

"To-night, when all the family, — including the
young wife's mother, grandmother, aunt, and
brother, — were at dinner, Y. came into the dining
room, apparently happy and ready for reconcilia-
tion. He approached his wife smiling, kissed her
tenderly, and in a flash whipped out two revolvers
and shot twice.

"Both bullets took effect and the young woman
died instantly. Before the horrified relatives
could move, Y. placed the muzzle of the revolver

HUSBAND AND WIFE 157

to his head and pulled the trigger. He fell un-
conscious and was immediately rushed to a hos-
pital, where he died later.

"The wedding of the dashing young woman and
Y. was one of the leading society events of the
city last June."

"Lake Providence, La., January 23. — Dr. X.
Y. Z., a physician, was shot and killed by Mrs. Z.
to-day in a sanitarium owned by Z., shortly after
they had breakfasted together. Mrs. Z. imme-
diately surrendered to the authorities. Mrs. Z.
has so far made no statement."

The spectacle of a wife and daughter-in-law
putting their husband and father-in-law in bank-
ruptcy is presented by Bankruptcy Case No. 1412,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, brought February 12, 1913.

The Creditor's Petition in the case is brought
in the names of the wife and daughter-in-law first,
and the owner of the house in which the family
lived, who joins on account of the rent which
would be due him. The debtor is alleged in the
petition to have lived for the greater portion of
six months preceding the date of the filing of the
petition in Portsmouth, Va. The nature and
amount of the petitions' claims are : the amount
due the wife, $1,000 for money lent and interest;
and to the daughter-in-law, $50.50, wages. The
petitioners present that the debtor is insolvent,

158 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

and, within four months next preceding the date
of the petition, committed an act of bankruptcy in
making an assignment of a large portion of his
chattels to one F., and that he had since ab-
sconded. The prayer of the petition is that a
subpoena may be made upon him, and that he may
be adjudged a bankrupt. This petition is sworn
to by the wife, the daughter-in-law, and the owner
of the house.

All that was wanting to finish the picture pre-
sented by this proceeding is supplied by reading
the return on the summons, which states that it
was executed by tacking a true copy of it, with
Petition attached, to the front door of the man's
"residence," a word used in the law, to supplant
the word home. Should he return, the first thing
which would greet his eyes would be this sinister
paper fluttering in the wind, tacked on the front
door of his home by the officer of the law, acting
on the orders of his wife, with the object of
putting him in bankruptcy. This is the welcome
awaiting him.

"Suffolk, Va., March 7, 1913. — X. Y., who was
struck by his wife with a big stone several days
ago, continues in a serious condition at St. An-
drew's hospital. The stone, according to Chief
B., must have weighed ten or eleven pounds, and
the woman, taking it in both hands, mauled Y.'s
head.

"C. Y. is still in jail awaiting developments."

HUSBAND AND WIFE 159

"Memphis, Term., March 15, 1913. — M. N.,
contractor, 35 years old, was shot and probably
fatally wounded by his wife, Mrs. N., in their
home here to-night. N. has a bullet in his right
lung, and his wife, repentant, is under arrest
pending the result of his injuries. She declared an
intercepted letter to her husband from another
woman crazed her."

The cases of violence and bloodshed here cited
are not the necessary killing of the men of one
army by those of another, in order to accom-
plish some end deemed important enough to
justify it, with the hope that the result will be of
a lasting peace. Far from it. They are the
manifestations of a disorder that grows greater
every day, a disorder, the inevitable end of which
must be the firm establishment of chaos and
anarchy within the sacred precincts of the home,
at the family table, and >at the sacred fireside.
They represent the devastation and ruin of the
most sacred of shrines, whose destruction is
enough to bring upon our race of men an age
darker than the Dark Ages known to history.

The confusion now existing in the relation of
husband and wife is analogous to the political con-
fusion which arises in cases of doubtful or ques-
tionable sovereignty, — a situation which naturally
culminates in civil war. The rules of domestic
law, which have come down to us through the
past history of the race, have in the last few years

160 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

been so badly shaken and broken in upon that in-
stead of there being the legal unity of husband
and wife, with the acknowledged leadership in the
husband, the case is now sometimes stated in what
is intended as a humorous question. Husband
and wife are one in law; but which one? In
other words, where is the sovereignty vested?
It was this uncertainty as to which was the real
sovereign, the State or the Federal Union, which
brought on our civil war. It was this question, —
which had the right to be sovereign, — that deluged
England with blood in the struggle between the
houses of York and Lancaster; France, in the
days of the Bourbons and Napoleon; the Roman
world, in the days of Brutus and Cassius, rep-
resenting the Republic, and Octavius Caesar, rep-
resenting the rising Empire. No more dreadful
question can be asked than that. Our legislation
has been so radical as to open that question. The
men should have the courage to answer it, to an-
swer it promptly, and to undo the mischief al-
ready done, before it be too late. The temple of
Janus can never be closed so long as that question
is open.

Of course many of the decisions which we read
of in these cases of domestic broils do not properly
represent even the law of the State in which they
occur.

They are rendered by police justices, and
such other lower tribunals, which lean to what
they consider the popular side of the controversy,

HUSBAND AND WIFE 161

and which decide at once against the man, with
little or no regard to the cause of the trouble. In
particularly shocking cases the decisions are at
once spread abroad by the newspapers, and go
into every State in the Union as the law of the
land, and still further demoralize the standards
and the ideas on the subject in the minds of both
the men and the women. The case, generally in-
volving a man of limited means, is not carried by
appeal to a higher tribunal, where judges appre-
ciating the effect of the decision may pass upon
it.

The defendant, the unhappy and maltreated
husband, is probably not even represented by
counsel in the lower court. Ignorant of his rights,
and unwilling or unable to pay for legal aid in his
distress, he thinks the shortest and easiest way
out of the trouble is to pay the fine imposed upon
him by the justice, or, in case of inability to do
this, to go to jail for the necessary time instead.

Thus the decision, whether right or wrong,
stands; and having been reported all over the
country as good law, is taken to be such by the
millions of the ill-informed who read it, and who
do not comprehend that, in the first place, the
decision was possibly in violation of the law of
the State in which it was rendered; and, in the
second place, that if really law in that State, it
does not follow that it is the law in the State
where they live. All these matters, of course,
are regulated exclusively by the laws of the sev-

1 62 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

eral States. The Western States, by their fool-
ish rules on this subject, are demoralizing the
whole country; but what they choose to enact is
only of force within their borders, and we need
suffer no such affliction unless our Legislature be
silly enough to copy their statutes. But the aver-
age man is too ignorant to realize this ; and when
he sees in the paper that in Chicago a husband
has been put in jail on some ridiculous complaint
on the part of his wife he concludes at once that
he, in Virginia, is liable to be treated in exactly
the same way.

Conditions are thus forever going from bad to
worse, and will do so until the men wake up to
the seriousness of the situation, and reverse the
tide which threatens to overwhelm them with
dire afflictions.

Woman's suffrage is the worst thing that
could happen to them, for the men of Vir-
ginia can with confidence expect that if women
have the right to vote every radical enactment
adopted by any other State will, sooner or later,
be attempted to be forced upon Virginia. And,
since men have by their weakness, indifference,
or apparent willingness to submit to such treat-
ment encouraged these attacks, the ingenuity of
our legislators will be further directed against
them. A husband is now viewed with an evil eye.
He seems to have been placed in a very unpopular
position. Nothing seems to be bad enough for
him. No one ever says a word in his favor. He

HUSBAND AND WIFE 163

is a target to shoot at. Take him and kill him,
for there is none to deliver.

Husbands, too, need not suppose that these
divorce suits, which their wives have now learned
to bring so promptly against them, involve only
the separation from their helpmeets. This sepa-
ration they might be able to stand, in some cases,
with great fortitude. But if that were all that
is to be obtained by the divorce, not so many of
these suits would be brought. Probably the main
object of the proceeding may be to obtain a decree
for alimony, a decree which, while giving your
wife an independent income at your expense, may
put you in jail, or in bankruptcy, or in both.

Some of these decrees for alimony are exceed-
ingly severe; the papers referred to one which
ordered a poor husband to pay $50 a week out of
a salary of $100 a month. Another held that
the fact that the husband had no money with
which to pay alimony was no excuse for his not
paying it. Not to pay alimony, whatever be the
cause, may be held to be a contempt of court —
and to jail you go.

It has always been held that being a husband
and the father of a family is the full attainment
of manhood. The perpetuation of the State and
the race are involved in this, as well as the con-
tinuation of the life of the families which compose
the State. One would think that this were of
sufficient importance for a wise public policy to
hold out some inducements to men to marry, to

1 64 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

realize the possibilities of human nature, and to
enjoy all the domestic relationships. But, to the
contrary, the policy of our newly enacted laws is
just the reverse. From the moment he leaves the
altar with his bride the rules of law are now
against the husband. Everybody in his family
is to be considered before him. As between him
and his wife, everything is in favor of her; as be-
tween him and his children, everything is in their
favor, as opposed to him.

Napoleon, when he gave the poor woman the
money to make up the dowry for her grand-
daughter, said: "I want soldiers, and for that
purpose must encourage marriages." Every State
should encourage marriages, not only for sol-
diers, but for the continuity of the State and the
race itself. If this great man could return to
earth and take in charge the State of Virginia
with its network of laws on this subject, we can
imagine no legislative work which would sooner
command his attention than that of sweeping away
the whole illogical and ridiculous system, — a
system which is enough to freeze marriage to
death.

What wonder is it, therefore, that men are be-
ginning to see that they are better off without
the blessings, comforts, and pleasures which were
formerly understood to belong to them as married
men? A striking example of this occurred the
other day, if the newspaper account of it be cor-
rect, Mr. X., the great railroad man, and a multi-

HUSBAND AND WIFE 165

millionaire, died, and as usual incidents of his life
were then brought before the public. An ac-
count was given of the visit of a friend to his
fine estate on L. I. The visitor admired the ap-
pointments of the establishment, the beauty of the
surroundings, and remarked to Mr. X. that all
that was lacking to make the place ideal was a
wife. "Wife," replied Mr. X. sharply; "wife be
d — d. I would not have one if she were as fair
as Venus, and as pure as the Virgin."

As these ideas grow, marriage however still
remaining indispensable to the State, a distinct
tendency has now shown itself to drive men into
marriage. As the system in itself presents less
and less attractions the men are to be propelled
toward it, if other means fail, by abuse. Thus we
read the following definition of a bachelor, ac-
credited to a Mississippi preacher: UA parasitical
dodger, a solitary satellite around his own ego,
and a sluggish human of exuberant egotism."

What coercive measures may not become neces-
sary, to keep the institution in any degree of
flourishing condition, when the ideas of the public
in regard to the relation have become so de-
moralized that one finds exposed for sale in a
reputable art store a colored, printed card, in-
tended probably to be put up in one's office,
bearing the words : "Don't tell us your troubles,
we are married too?" And, illustrating what is
meant by trouble, a picture is presented of a
window in the man's home, through which, de-

1 66 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

picted in bold silhouette, is seen the 'husband on
his knees, with both hands uplifted in agonized
supplication to his wife, while she is beating him
over the head with a rolling-pin !

CHAPTER X

Among the better-off the men are deserted for
a large part of the year. The wife and the chil-
dren go off to a summer resort for three or four
months. The husband has to stay at home, in an
empty house at night, and bearing the heat and
burden of the day, at work, to make the money
to keep his family in a distant place. No one is
at home to help him, to cheer him, to comfort
him. We have heard of one husband who, under
these circumstances, utterly neglected and alone,
and taken suddenly sick at night, died, with no
one to call a physician, or render him the least
aid.

During this dreary period of the long summer
vacation for the women and the children, which
becomes longer and longer each year, the poor
husband has all the disadvantages of both a
married and a single man, without any of the com-
pensating advantages of either.

; 'What news have you heard from your wife?'
asked the neighbor.

4 'Nothing except that she needs money again,'
replied the lonely husband.' "

The position of a parent will be made one de-
gree more miserable, if we should ever adopt the

167

1 68 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

compulsory-education theory. The plan would be
to put you in jail if you did not send your child
to school. And you might at any time find your-
self in the position of the parent in one of the
Western States for whose arrest there were two
warrants out. He had a bad son who would not
go to school, so the father gave him a whipping
in order to make him go. He was then arrested
on the charge of cruelty to the child, for giving
him the whipping; and also by the school authori-
ties for not having his son at school.

Another source of much misery is the over-
doing of the life insurance system. The poor
husband, having been despoiled of nearly every-
thing else, has at least his life left him. But he
is not left in peace to enjoy this last asset, his
life must be insured for the benefit of his wife, —
in case anything should happen to him, — as the
expression is. Something is certainly going to
happen to him after his life is insured; those heavy
premiums are going to fall due with unerring reg-
ularity. Still the phrase is an alluring one, — "in-
suring one's life." That sounds well; we would
all like to be assured of life. The idea in the
minds of the husband and the wife is at first that
the danger that hangs over the household, due to
the contingency of the death of the husband, the
supporter of the family, is neutralized by the in-
surance, and that both can thereafter breathe in
peace, that danger having been provided against.

So the first payments are cheerfully made.

HUSBAND AND WIFE 169

Soon other dues are payable; the needs of to-day
have to be put aside, to keep up the life insurance,
the protection for the future. Years pass; the
quotas fall due with clock-work regularity, money
always going out, nothing coming in; expenses
meanwhile ever increasing; nothing in hand, noth-
ing put aside of a visible and tangible nature, —
all the faith and the hope of the family centered
in the life insurance, which some day is to be of
such great advantage to them. Probably during
these years the husband's earning power has
diminished, what was once easily paid has now be-
come difficult to pay. However, it must be paid,
or a loss occurs; still nothing coming in, every-
thing going out. Now, is it not in human nature
that a psychological change should have gradually
taken place in this family during this time, and
that the period when the life insurance is to be at
last paid in to them, and the payments to be made
by them for it are to cease, become a time to be
desired? But that time is only to come, in most
cases, by the death of the husband. It is a pitiable
situation which is here presented.

The writer has seen the head of the house a
veritable sacrifice led to the slaughter, with his
needy family hanging around him waiting for his
death, all the family hopes centering around the
time when the wretched victim should expire, and
the money for his death be collected, — the in-
surance for which so many thousand dollars had
been paid out in premiums. And then the life in-

i yo SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

surance was contested, and most of it lost by
failure to pay the last premium. He has known
another case where it was wholly lost. He has
heard an insured husband say that he was worth
more to his family dead than alive. The family
most likely had found that out long before he did.
So the change comes from looking to the life in-
surance as a fund to arise if the husband die, to a
fund which they will only reap any advantage
from when the husband dies. It is a wretched
situation, and one in which faith in God is prob-
ably supplanted by faith in the life insurance. "I
have been young and now am old," said King
David; "yet have I not seen the righteous for-
saken, nor his seed begging bread."

We say these things against life insurance be-
cause we believe it is a bad policy for the in-
dividual, as well as a bad policy for the State.
For the individual, because there is this everlast-
ing drain on his resources to keep alive an obliga-
tion on the part of a distant company to pay
money to his family after his death. This money
he should invest during his own lifetime. Each
acquisition would render him stronger, and it
would be a source of pleasure to him to see his
possessions grow. It is a more cheerful form of
investment, and a safer one; for who can tell
but what the company may be insolvent when the
time comes to pay? Besides, it prevents his
family's gaining by his death, which is an unutter-
ably miserable position for the head of a family

HUSBAND AND WIFE 171

to occupy toward its members; they should look
forward to his death with sorrow, not with relief.
If the premiums were invested as is here sug-
gested, on the whole, — that is, in the vast majority
of cases, — they would amount to more than the
principal of the insurance. This fact is proved
by the enormous surpluses the life insurance com-
panies sometimes pile up. When a man who has in-
vested his money during his lifetime dies his family
lose him, but his property, already in the family,
passes by his will, or according to the law of de-
scent. His heirs have learned by experience how to
manage such property as may have been acquired,
and on the whole are in a much safer condition
than if suddenly presented with a large sum in
cash, which may possibly be lost or squandered.

So far as our State is concerned the life in-
surance system has few redeeming features. It
drains the Commonwealth of money which is sent
to the larger cities, where it forms a part of vast
reserve funds which are used for the building up
of those places to the impoverishment of ours, as
of course on the whole transactions of the com-
panies the rates are made high enough to leave
a large margin of profit. It would vastly improve
our condition to have this money stay at home,
and be used here for the building up of our
section.

What a contrast is presented by this life in-
surance system, with the wife possibly looking
forward to the time when the principal will be

SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

collected as the only one probable opportunity
that she will ever have in this life for liberty and
independence, to the suttee system which prevailed
in India, when, in the event of the husband's
death, the faithful wife gave herself to the flames
in order to accompany and serve him in the land
of spirits ! His death meant her death, not her in-
dependence and affluence. What a difference in
the care and the treatment a husband would be
likely to receive under these different systems.
"You die; our struggles are over, our self-denial
is over, and I become rich." "You die; and by
the customs of society it is expected that I die
also. I will therefore endeavor to help you to
live."

If this thing, instead of being called insurance
of life, which it can in no wise prolong, were called
what it really is, insurance of death, which it no
doubt often accelerates, it would soon become
much more unpopular.

"Macon, Ga., December 27, 1912. — Mrs. A.,
widow of the prominent Round Oak, Ga., planter,
who was killed near here December 12, to-night
confessed that she plotted with B., a farm hand,
to kill her husband so that she might marry B.
and secure $2,000 life insurance carried by her
husband.

"The widow of the dead man was arrested
to-day after B. had confessed to the police that he
shot and killed A. because Mrs. A. offered him

HUSBAND AND WIFE 173

$600 to commit the crime, promising to marry him.

"In her confession Mrs. A. declared that if it
had not been for the $2,000 insurance policy she
never would have planned to kill her husband.

"For more than two hours after her arrest the
woman refused to discuss the tragedy. Detectives
related to her details of B.'s confession, and
finally she collapsed, crying: 'Do you think God
will forgive me? Then with God as my help, I
will tell you all. For I cannot meet my God with
a lie on my lips. Ask the people to have mercy
on me, not for myself but for my children.

" 'Last March/ added Mrs. A., 'B. and myself
were sitting alone in my dining room. B. told me
that he didn't have a friend in the world, and
patting him on the back I told him I would be his
friend. From that time on our relations were
most intimate. We met at frequent intervals and
had signals so that I could let B. know when my
husband was away from home.

1 'Had it not been for the $2,000 insurance we
would never have planned to kill my husband.
My first attempt was to kill him with strychnine.
B. bought the strychnine and we put it in my
husband's whiskey. When he became deathly sick
he took an antidote and recovered.

1 'It was then that we planned to shoot him. B.
told me that we would catch him out hunting and
kill him with his own gun. The day of the killing
Mr. A. was sick. The doctor told him that he
should not eat pork so he took his gun and went

174 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

into the woods to kill some birds. He left home
about 3 130 in the afternoon, and when he had been
gone about an hour B. came. I told him my
husband had gone hunting, and he said, 'Now is
our time'; and I said, 'Yes/

" 'When my husband did not return I knew he
was dead, and I sent C. D. and E. F., my son-in-
law, to hunt for him. After they had gone B.
told me that it was all over. We didn't discuss
the killing until December 17, when Detective M.
called to talk with me. After M. left, B. told me
he knew they suspected him, but I told him to
brace up and give nothing away, even if he was on
a scaffold with a rope around his neck. I did not
believe he would give me away. When B. was
arrested I made up my mind I would go to the
gallows before I would tell a word. Later I came
to the conclusion that I could not meet my God
with a lie on my lips.

1 'I was a good Christian woman before I met
B., and had never done a wrong in my life. I
have been a member of the church for fourteen
years, am thirty-five years old, and have six chil-
dren. The oldest is eighteen and the youngest
four.' "

It is not the object of this work to make it
appear that it would be well to establish in
America the suttee system, nor the usages of an-
tiquity, nor the present customs of the East.
These are all as foreign and ill adapted to the
ideas, traditions, and usages of our race as are

HUSBAND AND WIFE 175

i • i

the enactments of the Legislature passed during
the last few years, adopted, as we believe, with-
out due consideration or appreciation of their
ultimate effect. What we think should be done is
to lop off the excrescences brought about by these
recent acts by repealing them, and, so far as possi-
ble, reestablish the institution of marriage on the
basis it was at the time our fathers and mothers
were married. The system then in force was in
harmony with, and founded upon, the rules laid
down in the Bible. It was in accord with the
genius and the traditions of our race and con-
stitute the well tried way, the beaten path, by
which this race has progressed throughout the
whole course of its history. Under that system,
the wife was not an owned chattel, as the suf-
fragettes would have people believe.

Martha Washington bore no such relation to
General Washington, and Mrs. Lee bore no such
relation to General Lee. Indeed the whole con-
struction of society in Virginia from the days of
Washington to those of Lee, in regard to the
dignity, elegance, propriety, and harmony of
domestic life would compare to the system of
turmoil and discord put into operation since the
days of the latter only as light compares to dark-
ness. We are moving, but it is not forward nor
upward.

The wife, under the system which we now seem
bent on destroying was the honored consort of a
man, who was himself respected in his position

176 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

as the natural and legal head of the family group.
He was respected within the domestic circle by
his wife and his children; and without, by society
and the government. Where is the human wis-
dom to be found which will improve upon the
experience of ages and the rules laid down by the
Creator? For any one not to know the truth of
the first part of this statement would convict him
or her of gross ignorance of the history and
institutions of our race. For anyone not to believe
the latter part would convict him or her of dis-
belief in the statements of the Bible, which are
as clear on that subject as the revealed word can
make them. To adopt, therefore, the views of
the suffragettes would involve a determination to
attempt the reconstruction of society according
to the theories of the ignorant, or of the unbe-
lieving, or of those who are both ignorant and
unbelieving. To follow the lead of the ignorant
would be foolish; to follow the lead of the godless
would be worse than that, — it would be calami-
tous, for it would conduct us into who can tell
what abysses of disorder?

Just before the French Revolution false phi-
losophy had undermined the Christian religion.
One of the objects of its attack had been the
sacredness of the domestic relations, all idea of
which had withered beneath the blight of infi-
delity.

A new application of the doctrine of the
present-day infidelity is now attacking our family

HUSBAND AND WIFE 177

life, and, under the specious plea of elevating
women and bettering the condition of children, is
annihilating the home.

If these recent enactments were to be repealed,
the common law of England would stand revived.
If it were thought that, in regard to the personal
relations of the husband and wife, there were any
points which should be modified to conform more
to the ideas of the present age, they could be
specifically provided for. In regard to the prop-
erty rights of the consorts, if the simplicity of the
common law in practically vesting the title of all
the property of the wife except her real estate in
the hubsand were deemed too favorable to him,
some other method whereby a reasonable com-
munity of interest in the property owned by either
consort would be secured to the other could be
adopted. It would not require a Lycurgus nor a
Solon to devise some beter method than that now
in force, whereby the hubsand is too often reduced
to zero, and creditors defrauded of their just
debts.

CHAPTER XI

Any one or more of the following characters
might easily be seen during a day's stroll about
one of our cities.

The man you see over there in seedy clothes
and shiny elbows, with the careworn expression
on his face, is on his way to the office of the life
insurance agent, to pay the premium which falls
due to-day.

The well-dressed man with the shifty appear-
ance about him, who will not look you straight
in the eye, has just come from his lawyer's, where
he has executed a deed to his wife, in consideration
of love and affection, conveying all his property
to her. Some notes of his fall due to-morrow,
and there is no means of payment in sight.

The two men you have just passed walking
like brothers side by side and very close to each
other are not brothers: they are a husband and
a deputy sheriff who has arrested him for con-
tempt of court in not paying the alimony due this
month to his wife. They are now on their way to
the court-house.

The group of idlers you saw on the corner are
the boys just discharged from the theater, in
order to put girls in their places as ushers.

178

HUSBAND AND WIFE 179

The funeral which passed in front of you at the
corner was that of a man who had been shot by
his wife.

The row of deserted-looking houses you noticed
in the west end were those of the leading citizens,
whose wives and children are away until the fall.

The pallid face of the man you saw at the
morgue was that of a business man who shot him-
self. His wife had just brought a suit against
him for divorce.

The cluster of newly-made graves that you
were struck with while passing through the ceme-
tery were those of the family that had been killed
by the father before he committed suicide. The
single one in the next lot was that of the father
who had been killed by his son.

The men in the cells on the side of the jail you
looked at were those who had been imprisoned
for non-support. The one about to be taken out
of the city was he who had been condemned to
work on the public roads for deserting his wife,
who had threatened him with a divorce.

The very fashionably dressed widow who drives
down the street in a "smart" turnout is the lady
whose husband committed suicide not long ago.
No one knew why.

The man who walks rapidly past you with a
preoccupied air is on his way to the court-house —
the divorce case pending between him and his
wife is up for trial, and the amount of alimony
to be decreed against him will be decided to-day.

i8o SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

The pretty house which you particularly noticed
as being "For Sale" was the home of the wealthy
young couple whose marriage was the leading
social event last spring, but who could not get on
together. The bride is now living with her
parents, and the husband is traveling abroad.

A large crowd is collected about a formidable
looking building. It is the Court House. Some
of the crowd are witnesses, others defendants, and
still others idle bystanders. A number of cases
are set for trial. Some of these are warrants
against men for deserting wives with whom they
cannot live in peace; or, being out of work, for not
supporting them. Other cases involve whole
families in which rows have broken out, the blame
for everything being of course laid upon the hus-
bands, who are to be vigorously prosecuted, their
wives and children testifying against them. Their
fate and the future conduct of their homes depend
upon the decision of a judge and jury who de-
cide matters of fundamental importance to the
whole of society as best they may under the pres-
sure of business due to an overcrowded docket,
and with a general notion in their minds that the
public expects them to render nothing but judg-
ments of guilty against all husbands and fathers
brought before them.

On a more prominent street a larger crowd,
mainly composed of matrons and young women,
are pressing into an attractive building. The
matinee is about to begin; the play they will see

HUSBAND AND WIFE 181

has as its theme the tearing asunder of husband
and wife.

The lady in mourning, with the pleased expres-
sion on her countenance, riding in her new auto-
mobile, is the widow of the man who worked
himself to death last month. She has just col-
lected the life insurance.

The chatty group of ladies on the other side
of the street, well kept and well dressed, having
just come from a card-party, which took up the
morning, are now on their way to a suffrage meet-
ing, to demand more rights.

Father and Child

Father and Child

CHAPTER I

"Honor thy father and thy mother; that thy
days may be long upon the land which the Lord
thy God giveth thee." (Exodus XX, 12.)

One would think upon studying the construction
of American society, that this commandment had
been written: "Honor thy son and thy daughter,
that thy days may be short upon the land which
the Lord their God giveth them."

The subordination of children to their parents
is manifestly the order of nature, and there is no
good reason for the way in which we see this
relation so often reversed. It is here that modern
life presents possibly the most striking contrast to
past usages and customs. Everything now is in
favor of the child, and at the expense of the head
of the family — the father. The sum total of the
rights which exist in the world must remain prac-
tically the same, so when rights are changed it must
be that what is given to one is taken away from
another. Now >all the present freedom and lib-
erty of women and children, together with all the
incidents connected with it, are at the expense of

185

1 86 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

someone else, and that someone is the husband
and the father. It is at his immediate expense, in
the way of money, loss of authority, loss of serv-
ices, and loss of consideration, that all these things
are asserted and claimed by his wife and his chil-
dren. They are supposed to be the gainers; he
is undoubtedly the loser.

As between the two parents — the father and the
mother — nature, history, custom, law, and natural
authority clearly indicate the father as the prin-
cipal parent, as he also should in all respects be
the undisputed head of the family. There is here
again a modern tendency to lay the stress upon the
other parent, and emphasize unduly the maternal
relation. The novels and the stage are full of this
idea, and one would think on studying them that a
child had only one parent — its mother.

It is interesting to see what view antiquity took
of this matter — one about which they knew equally
as much as we do — and we find that the ancients
were in complete opposition to the modern idea.

In the very scholarly work of De Coulanges,
"The Ancient City," on page 48, in discussing the
family religion, he says: "But we must notice this
peculiarity — that the domestic religion was trans-
mitted only from male to male. This was owing,
no doubt, to the idea that generation was due
entirely to the males. The belief of primitive
ages, as we find it in the Vedas, and as we find
vestiges of it in all Greek and Roman law, was
that the reproductive power resided exclusively

FATHER AND CHILD 187

in the father. The father alone possessed the
mysterious principle of existence, and transmitted
the spark of life. From this old notion it fol-
lowed that the domestic worship always passed
from male to male; that a woman participated in
it only through her father or her husband; and,
finally, that after death women had not the same
part as men in the worship and the ceremonies of
the funeral meal. Still other important conse-
quences in private law and in the constitution of
the family resulted from this."

In order to appreciate fully the loss of power
and importance which fathers have suffered in this
matter, it is necessary to review these powers as
they once existed. They are known as the Patria
Potestas, or Paternal Authority. We find an
enumeration of them in "The Ancient City,"
between pages 117 and 122. They consisted of
these rights on the part of the father:

"The father is the supreme chief of the do-
mestic religion. . . . No one contests his sacer-
dotal supremacy. The city itself and its pontiffs
can change nothing in his worship. As priest of
the hearth he recognizes no superior."

"As religious chief, he is responsible for the
perpetuity of the worship, and, consequently, for
that of the family. Whatever effects this per-
petuity, which is his first care and his first duty,
depends upon him alone. From this flows a whole
series of rights:

1 88 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

"The right to recognize the child at its birth,
or to reject it. . *••'.; j

uThe right to repudiate the wife, either in case
of sterility, because the family must not become
extinct, or in case of adultery, because the family
and the descendants ought to be free from all
debasement.

"The right to give his daughter in marriage, —
that is to say, to cede to another the power which
he has over her. The right of marrying his son;
the marriage of the son concerns the perpetuity
of the family.

"The right to emancipate, — that is to say, to
exclude a son from the family and the worship.
The right to adopt, — that is to say, to introduce
a stranger to the domestic hearth.

"The right at his death of naming a guardian
for his wife and children.

"It is necessary to remark that all these rights
belonged to the father alone, to the exclusion of
all the other members of the family. The wife
had not the right of divorce, at least in primitive
times. Even when a widow she could neither
emancipate nor adopt. She was never the guard-
ian even of her own children. In case of divorce,
the children remained with the father, — even the
daughters. Her children were never in her power.
Her consent was not asked for the marriage of
her own daughter."

"There could be in each family but one pro-
prietor, which was the family itself, and only one

FATHER AND CHILD 189

to enjoy the use of the property, — the father."

"The property not being capable of division,
and resting entirely on the head of the family,
neither wife nor children had the least part in
it. ... The dowry of the wife belonged, without
reserve, to the husband, who exercised over her
dowry not only the rights of an administrator, but
of an owner."

"The son was in the same condition as the wife;
he owned nothing. No donation made by him
was valid, since he had nothing of his own. He
could acquire nothing; the fruits of his labor, the
profits of his trade, were his father's. If a will
were made in his favor by a stranger, his father,
not himself, received the legacy."

"We see in the Roman laws, and we find also
in the laws of Athens, that a father could sell
his son. This was because the father might dis-
pose of all the property of the family, and the
son might be looked upon as property, since his
labor was a source of income. The father might,
therefore, according to choice, keep this instru-
ment of labor, or resign it to another. To resign
it was called selling the son. . . . His liberty was
not sold; only his labor. Even in this state
the son remained subject to the parental
authority."

"Of all the family the father alone could appear
before the tribunal of the city; public justice
existed only for him; and he alone was responsible
for the crimes committed by his family.

1 9o SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

"Justice for wife and son was not in the city,
because it was in the house. The chief of the
family was their judge, placed upon a judgment
seat in virtue of his marital and parental author-
ity, in the name of the family and under the eyes
of the domestic divinities.

"This judicial authority, which the chief of the
family exercised in his house, was complete and
without appeal. He could condemn to death like
the magistrate in the city, and no authority could
modify his sentence. 'The husband,' says Cato
the Elder, 'is the judge of his wife; his power has
no limit; he can do what he wishes. If she has
committed a fault, he punishes her; if she has
drunk wine, he condemns her; if she has been
guilty of adultery, he kills her.' The right was
the same in regard to children. Valerius Max-
imus cites a certain Atilius who killed his daughter
as guilty of unchastity, and everybody will recall
the father who put his son, an accomplice of
Catiline, to death.

"Facts of this nature are numerous in Roman
history. It would be a false idea to suppose that
the father had an absolute right to kill his wife
and children. He was their judge. If he put
them to death, it was only by virtue of his right
as judge. As the father of the family was alone
subject to the judgment of the city, the wife and
the son could have no other judge than him.
Within his family he was the only magistrate."

This statement of the rights of the father by De

FATHER AND CHILD 191

Coulanges* is amply verified by other works on
this subject.

Maine, in his great work on "Ancient Law," on
page 132, and those following, gives a similar
account of the Paternal Authority as it existed in
Rome.

"Father and son voted together in the city, and
fought side by side in the field; indeed, the son,
as general, might happen to command the father,
or, as magistrate, decide on his contracts and
punish his delinquencies. But in all the relations
created by private law the son lived under a
domestic despotism, which, considering the
severity it retained to the last and the number of
centuries through which it endured, constitutes one
of the strangest problems in legal history."

"So far as regards the person, the parent, when
our information commences, has over his children
the jus vita necisque, the power of life and death,
and a fortiori of uncontrolled corporal chastise-
ment; he can modify their personal condition at
pleasure; he can give a wife to his son; he can
give his daughter in marriage; he can divorce his
children of either sex; he can transfer them to
another family by adoption; and he can sell them.
Late in the Imperial period we find vestiges of all
these powers, but they are reduced within very
narrow limits."

*Reproduced by permission of the Lothrop, Lee & Shephard
Company.

192 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

"We cannot tell how far public opinion may
have paralyzed an authority which the law con-
ferred, nor how far natural affection may have
rendered it endurable. But though the powers
over the person may have been latterly nominal,
the whole tenor of the extant Roman juris-
prudence suggests that the father's rights over the
son's property were always exercised without
scruple to the full extent to which they were
sanctioned by law. There is nothing to astonish
us in the latitude of these rights when they first
show themselves. The ancient law of Rome for-
bade the children under power to hold property
apart from their parent, or, we should say, never
contemplated the possibility of their claiming a
separate ownership. The father was entitled to
take the whole of the son's acquisitions, and to
enjoy the benefit of his contracts without being
entangled in any compensating liability."

Inge, in his interesting work, entitled "Society
in Rome under the Caesars," on page 172, gives a
brief account of the paternal authority thus :

"From the moment when he first saw the light
the Roman child was absolutely under the power
of his father. As the family, with its sacred rites
and continuous existence was the unit of society,
so the pater familias was the despotic head of the
group he represented. As he had called his child
into being, so it rested with him whether that
being should be continued or not. A sickly or

FATHER AND CHILD 193

deformed child was generally drowned at once,
and no obligation was felt to rear even a healthy
infant. If the question was decided in its favor,
the child was given one of the few praenomina in
use at Rome; the sacred ceremony of lustration
admitted him into the family circle; the golden
token, the sign of free-birth, was hung round his
neck; his birth was entered in the acta diurna, and
formal notice of the same given to the Prefect of
the Treasury. Still the father by no means lost his
authority over the person of the child. He might
punish him to any extent he liked, sell him as a
slave, or put him to death."

These rules began with the foundation of Rome,
and may account, in some measure, for the ascen-
dency which that State acquired among the nations
of the world. The following statement of the
policy of the founder of that city is taken from
Abbott's "Life of Romulus/' page 240:

"The great leading objects of his life, from the
time that he commenced the government of the
new city, were to arrange and regulate social insti-
tutions, to establish laws, to introduce discipline,
to teach and accustom men to submit to authority,
and to bring in the requirements of law, and the
authority of the various recognized relations of
social life, to control and restrain the wayward
impulses of the natural heart,
great stress upon the" parental and family relation.

"As a part of this system of policy, he laid

i94 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

He saw in the tie which binds the father to the
child, and the child to the father, a natural bond
which he foresaw would greatly aid him in keep-
ing the turbulent and boisterous propensities of
human nature under some proper control. He
accordingly magnified and confirmed the natural
force of parental authority by adding the sanc-
tions of law to it. He defined and established
the power of the father to govern and control the
son, rightly considering that the father is the
natural ally of the state in restraining young men
from violence, and in enforcing habits of industry
and order upon them at an age when they most
need control. He clothed parents, therefore, with
authority to fulfil this function, considering that
what he thus aided them to do was so much saved
for the civil magistrate and the state. In fact,
he carried this so far that it is said that the
dependence of the child upon the father, under
the institutions of Romulus, was more complete
and was protracted to a later period than was
the case under the laws of any other nation. The
power of the father over his household was
supreme. He was a magistrate, so far as his chil-
dren were concerned, and could thus not only
require their services, and inflict light punishment
for disobedience upon them, as with us, but could
sentence them to the severest penalties of the law,
if guilty of crime."

Instances showing the exercise of this paternal

FATHER AND CHILD 195

power occur in several places in the Bible. The
most conspicuous is that afforded by the contem-
plated sacrifice by Abraham of his son Isaac, as
given in the twenty-second chapter of Genesis:
"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took
the knife to slay his son." The sacrifice was not
made, a substitute for the son was found; the
test of Abraham's faith and obedience 'had been
made. But, if he had killed Isaac, it would not
have been murder. He would not have been
called in question on account of it, for, if he had
ever been prosecuted in any earthly tribunal, his
simple and complete defense would have been that
he was the boy's father, and, as such, had the
right to put him to death, if he thought proper to
do so.

Another illustration is found in Genesis, forty-
second chapter, thirty-seventh verse. It had been
proposed to Jacob to let his son take Benjamin
back with them into Egypt, as demanded by
Joseph. Jacob is unwilling that this should be
done, as he is afraid he will never see him again.
Those who had been down to Egypt, knowing the
necessity of complying with Joseph's requirement,
insist upon it. "And Reuben spake unto his
father, saying, Slay my two sons, if I bring him
not to thee : deliver him into my hands and I will
bring him to thee again."

In this case the father asserted the power to
delegate to another the right to execute his chil-
dren. Jacob might have had this right himself

196 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

as grandfather, however, but Reuben clearly
claims this power as father.

Another case illustrating the existence of this
rule is found in II Kings, Chapter III, verses
26 and 27. The Kings of Israel, Judah and
Edom, are fighting as allies against the King of
Moab, who had rebelled against the King of
Israel. A strategem that the allies resort to de-
ceives the Moabites, and they are completely
routed in battle; and Israel, pursuing them into
their own country, lays waste their cities, fills up
their wells, and cuts down the trees. "And when
the King of Moab saw that the battle was too sore
for him, he took with him seven hundred man
that drew swords, to break through, even unto the
King of Edom; but they could not. Then he
took his eldest son that should have reigned in
his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering
upon the wall. And there was great indignation
against Israel: and they departed from him, and
returned to their own land."

The story of Jephthah and his daughter is
another, — Judges XI, Verse 29 and those follow-
ing: Jephthah, as a leader of the army, is going
forth to meet the Ammonites in battle. He is
very anxious to achieve a victory.

"And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord,
and said, If Thou shalt without fail deliver the
children of Ammon into mine hands,

"Then it shall be that whatsoever cometh forth
of the doors of my house to meet me, when I

FATHER AND CHILD 197

"And she said unto her father, Let this thing
be done for me; let me alone two months, that I
may go up and down upon the mountains, and
bewail my virginity, I and my fellows,
return in peace from the children of Ammon,
shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up
for a burnt offering."

"So Jephthah passed over unto the children of
Ammon to fight against them; and the Lord de-
livered them into his hands.

"And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou
come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the
plain of the vineyards, with very great slaughter.
Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before
the children of Israel.

"And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house,
and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him
with timbrels and with dances; and she was his
only child; beside her he had neither son nor
daughter.

"And it came to pass, when he saw her, that
he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter!
thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one
of them that trouble me; for I have opened my
mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.

"And she said unto him, My father, if thou
hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me
according to that which hath proceeded out of thy
mouth; forasmuch as the Lord hath taken ven-
geance for thee of thine enemies, even of the
children of Ammon.

198 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

"And he said, Go. And he sent her away for
two months; and she went with her companions,
and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.

"And it came to pass at the end of two months,
that she returned unto her father, who did with
her according to his vow which he had vowed:
and she knew no man. And it was a custom in
Israel that the daughters of Israel went yearly to
lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite
four days in a year."

This awful human sacrifice, so sublimely ac-
quiesced in by the daughter, and kept fresh in the
memory of that people by the annual celebration
of it, appears to have been in complete harmony
with the law and the custom of that time and that
race. It did not prejudice those of his day against
Jephthah. He leads the Gileadites soon after-
ward in a battle against the tribe of Ephraim,
defeats them, and is judge, — that is, chief magis-
trate and commander in chief of Israel, — for six
years, until his death. (Judges XII, Verse 7.)
And his fame and achievements are mentioned by
St. Paul, as one of the illustrations of the triumph
of faith. (Hebrews XI, Verse 32.)

No wonder under such a system, and with such
obedient children, we find their praises sung: "Lo,
children are an heritage of the Lord. ... As
arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are
children of the youth. Happy is the man that
hath his quiver full of them. . . . they shall

FATHER AND CHILD 199

speak with the enemies in the gate." (Psalms,
127.)

Such was the law and the custom of the past.
What is the present status of a father with refer-
ence to his own children? How have his rights
and privileges with reference to his children been
dealt with by modern legislatures? He has been
treated as if he were a public enemy. One by one
his rights with reference to his children's persons
and property have been taken away, modified,
reduced, nearly extinguished. We know of no
single provision of modern legislation which has
for an instant contemplated favoring, in any re-
spect, a father. He is carefully left with all the
burdens and responsibilities he ever had, and more
are added. He is liable still, as he has always
been at common law, for the maintenance and
support of his children; he is expected to exercise
the highest forms of self-abnegation and self-
sacrifice for them, but when it comes to giving
him a corresponding and compensating authority
over them, their persons, or their property, we
find that by one recent act of legislation after
another all such authority has been practically
taken away. The father is to have all the burdens
possible, but not to enjoy any advantages which
might flow from this relation.

CHAPTER II

Turning to the Code of Virginia, we will see
by an examination of existing laws, most of them
very recent, what the Legislature of Virginia has
done for fathers. These changes which are of
far-reaching importance were never openly de-
bated. The bills making them law passed quietly
through the Legislature, and no one knows that
a domestic revolution is being effected until it is
all accomplished.

The father now has no interest in property
which belongs to his living children. They may
be millionaires and he a pauper. He may become
guardian, if permitted by the proper court; and
in this case must give bond, keep strict accounts
with his child, settle the accounts promptly, be
liable for interest on funds not invested, held
responsible for compound interest in certain cases,
and be allowed out of the child's estate only the
child's necessary expenses for maintenance and
a small commission, just as if the child were some
one's else. He is held to accountability for every
cent. (Sections 2599, 2600, 2603, 2606, and the
following. )

When the father and mother are living apart,
undivorced, a court has discretion to take the

200

FATHER AND CHILD 201

children from the father and give them to the
mother. (Section 2610.) In case of divorce, the
decree of the court may take them from the father
altogether, (Section 2263), although he is still
recognized as the natural guardian and custodian,
and, in general, entitled to their custody.
(Latham vs. Latham, 30 Grattan, p. 307.)

In order to bind a minor as an apprentice, his
father as such has no right to do it, if there be a
guardian. If there be no guardian he can do so,
but not without the consent of a court, unless the
child be fourteen years old, in which case, if the
child consent to the proceeding, the consent of the
court may be dispensed with. (Section 2581.)
The earnings of the apprentice are only to go as
the court may direct (Section 2589.) The father
has no positive right to them.

The guardian of any child, with the consent of
the court, may have 'him taken from his father,
and put in any incorporated association, asylum,
or school, instituted for the support and education
of destitute children, which will thereupon be
entitled to his custody, and may bind him out as
an apprentice. (Section 2582.)

Any overseer of the poor, when allowed by the
court, may place any child in such institution, or
bind him out as an apprentice, if he be found
begging, or likely to become chargeable to the
county or city. (Section 2583.)

A new provision of law now allows a stranger
in blood, with the consent of the court and of the

202 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

legal guardian of the child, to adopt a child and
take it from its father for good and all, on the
ground that the parent is either hopelessly insane,
or is habitually intemperate, or has abandoned the
child. If there be no such guardian, the child may
be taken away with the cooperation of any "dis-
creet and suitable person appointed by the court
as the next friend of such child."

When all this has been done to the satisfaction
of the judge, the child is lost to its parents forever,
and becomes the child of another. (Section 2614
A.)

The father may now, under a very new statute,
passed in 1904, be put in jail if without just cause
he desert or wilfully neglect to provide for the
support of his minor children who may be in
destitute or necessitous circumstances. This statute
applies also to his relation as husband, and under
it now husbands are being prosecuted in various
parts of the State. (Section 3795 C; Acts 1904,
p, 208.)

But this act was not deemed sufficiently drastic,
so, in order to define fully the obligations and re-
sponsibilities of parents, and bring them entirely
under the shadow of the court, the sheriff, the
policeman, and the jail, the following bill was
passed, which took effect March 17, 1910:

"Be it enacted by the general assembly of Vir-
ginia, That any person within the State of Vir-
ginia of sufficient financial ability, earnings, or in-
come, who shall refuse or neglect to provide for

FATHER AND CHILD 203

any child under fourteen years of age, of which
he or she shall be the parent or guardian, such
food, clothing, and shelter as will prevent the
suffering and secure the safety of such child, or
shall subject a child under seventeen years of age
to vicious or immoral influences, shall be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction
thereof shall be subject to punishment by a fine
of not more than one hundred dollars, or by im-
prisonment in jail for a period not to exceed
sixty days, or in lieu thereof to 'hard labor on the
public roads for a period not to exceed sixty
days, but the court in its discretion, having re-
gard to the earning capacity of the defendant,
shall have the power to suspend the execution of
such sentence and to make an order, which shall
be subject to change by it from time to time as
the circumstances may require, directing the de-
fendant to pay a certain sum monthly for the
space of one year to the guardian or custodian of
such child, or to any society or association* ap-
proved by the court, and to release the defendant
from custody on probation for the space of one
year, upon his or her entering into recognizance,
with or without sureties, as the court may direct.

"The conditions of the above recognizance shall
be such that if the defendant shall promptly make
such payments, and shall make his or her appear-
ance in court whenever ordered to do so within
the year, and shall further comply with the terms
of the order, and of any subsequent modification

204 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

thereof, then the recognizance shall be void,
otherwise of full force and effect. If the court
be satisfied, by information and due proof, under
oath, that any time during the year the defendant
has violated the terms of such an order, it may
forthwith proceed to enforce the original sen-
tence. The court may direct any probation officer
of such city or town, at any time, to ascertain
and report to it if the defendant is obeying such
order of the court." (Acts 1910, p. 570.)

This Act, passed in the midst of the hurry and
turmoil of the very last days of the session of
the Legislature, was approved by the Governor
on the day of its adjournment, and on the same
day that other Acts, covering one hundred and
eight pages of closely printed matter, were ap-
proved by him. What human mind could, in such
a period of time, give to such a mass of legisla-
tion due attention?

This drastic legislation is important enough
to be made the subject of a party measure,
publicly discussed and debated. It is of far more
importance than the tariff, the pensions, whether
a Democrat or Republican be elected president,
and so forth. But they are never thus discussed.
These measures, which tear society to pieces,
glide through the halls of the Legislature with the
silent tread of a tiger, and become fastened upon
the public before it knows that such measures
were even under discussion. No thoughtful man
can view such proceedings with approbation, and

FATHER AND CHILD 205

his judgment on the reasonableness of such do-
mestic rules is not to be impeached by the mere
fact that they are now the law. It is proper to
inquire how such acts become laws and why they
should not be repealed.

The Act concludes with another sweeping pro-
vision, intended to protect children under seven-
teen years of age from all the ills which afflict
fallen human nature. This principle in itself is
most commendable, and is one which the moralists
and religious teachers of all times have struggled
for. But when put into law it would have the
effect, if enforced to the letter, of entitling pos-
sibly a large proportion of the population, who
from their poverty cannot maintain their children
in the surroundings which this Act makes impera-
tive, to be heavily fined and put in jail. And it
makes the position of a parent or guardian still
more dangerous, if indeed it do not threaten with
jail the whole adult population, for the Act makes
it unlawful for "any person" "to knowingly per-
mit" any boy or girl under seventeen years of
age to ube guilty of any vicious or immoral con-
duct." It is vicious or immoral to steal apples.
If you see a boy under seventeen years of age do
this, and knowingly permit it, you may be brought
within the operation of this statute. A fine of
possibly one hundred dollars, or jail for a year, or
hard labor on the public roads for six months thus
now stares everybody in the face. The less you
have to do with children under these rules the

2o6 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

better; they are dangerous creatures to have
around. It was not under such rules as this that
it was said: "Happy is the man who hath his
quiver full of them."

Juvenile Courts, <one of the products of this
modern legislation in regard to children, some-
times presided over by a woman, are another
manifestation and result of the decay of parental
authority, and a demonstration of the need for the
exercise of the very power they are usurping. A
bed-room slipper, a willow switch, or a piece of
shingle judiciously handled by the fathers of
America would be worth all the machinery of these
august tribunals put together, more certain, swift,
economical, and effective. For more serious mat-
ters the courts and the juries have generally tem-
pered justice with mercy when called upon to de-
cide the fate of youthful offenders.

An infant accompanying a convict mother to
the penitentiary, or born after her imprisonment
therein, shall be returned on attaining the age of
four years to the county or city from which the
mother came, to be disposed of as the circuit
court of said county, or the hustings or corpora-
tion court of said city, having jurisdiction, may
order. (Code, Section 4124.) In this case the
father, although he may be well known, is entirely
ignored. He appears to have no rights at all as
to his own child.

An elaborate and formidable statute is also en-
acted authorizing the courts to exercise practically

FATHER AND CHILD 207

unlimited authority in taking children under four-
teen away from their parents, either on the
ground that the child is destitute, or without
proper place of abode, or proper guardianship, or
is deserted or neglected, or ill-treated, etc., and
holding over any poor parent who dares interfere
with the custody in which he may be placed a fine
of fifty dollars and a three months' term in jail.
(Code, Section 3795, Acts 1901-2, p. 125.)

It sounds strange in reading this general nulli-
fier of parental authority that certain incorporated
bodies who take the children away from the par-
ents shall have the power and the right "to exer-
cise parental authority and control over such chil-
dren." Parental authority indeed! We would
like some one to point out anything more than the
merest shadow of it that the Legislature has left
in force in Virginia.

The ancient parental authority of giving the
child a whipping is transferred to the courts by a
statute which provides that when any minor under
sixteen years of age is convicted of a misde-
meanor,— that is, an offense not punishable by
death or confinement in the penitentiary, — the
justice or the judge before whom such conviction
is had may, if the parent or the guardian shall
inflict on such minor such punishment as the court
may think adequate, discharge such minor from
custody. The stripes imposed under this Act shall
be administered by the sheriff or any constable of
the county or sergeant of the Corporation wherein

208 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

the conviction is had, upon the order of the judge
or justice imposing the sentence, and at such time
and place as the said justice may direct. The
parent or guardian shall have the right to be pres-
ent when such stripes are administered. (Code,
Secction 3902 A; Acts 1897-8, p. 859.)

For fear that it had missed something, the
Legislature adds another long and formidable
provision applying to all minors charged with
crime, or with being vagrant or disorderly or in-
corrigible, on the mere ground of their being ar-
rested, and even before a conviction. This pro-
vision allows minors to be turned over to the
Prison Association of Virginia for custody and
control, the association to enjoy all the powers
which the authorities of the penitentiary have
with reference to convicts confined there. The
consent of the parent or legal guardian is neces-
sary in order to have children turned over in this
way before conviction. That much at least is re-
served to the parent. The commitment may last
until the child be eighteen years old. For helping
a child to escape, or knowingly harboring him
after escaping, such tender-hearted offenders may
be punished by a fine of five hundred dollars, and
by a term of half a year in jail; and it is made the
duty of all the officers of the State to hunt the
child down, catch him, and bring him back. Rig-
orous punishments are provided for any officer
that lets him escape, or that fails to receive him
and confine him. One ray of hope left in the

FATHER AND CHILD 209

Act is that the youthful wretches are not placed
beyond the governor's power of pardon, and con-
sequent freedom. (Code, Section 4173 D.)

A very similar provision is made by another
long and formidable statute, applying to the
Negro Reformatory Association of Virginia. The
poor parents, however, are not relieved of all their
liability for the support of their children when the
latter are taken in hand by this association, as
Section 12 of the Act provides that they may still
be held under a "continuing judgment" for eight
dollars a month for the support of the child
that is committed as a disorderly or vagrant per-
son. It is to be hoped that the very excellent
gentlemen named in the Act as trustees will tem-
per the wind to the shorn black lambs placed by
this law under their power. (Code, Section
4173 E.)

CHAPTER III

The Legislature, not having yet enacted enough
on the subject, now takes a fresh start, and pro-
duces a blood-curdling statute on the subject of
cruelty to children. It does not specially name
fathers, but it is evidently aimed at them, and in-
cludes them, as they are not excepted from its
provisions. It harrows one's feelings even to read
over the awful things which this Act declares must
not be done to children, such as placing them in
dangerous positions, endangering their lives, limbs
and health, or overworking, cruelly beating, tor-
turing, tormenting or mutilating them. It also
prohibits their being employed in certain occupa-
tions, and provides for the children's being taken
into the wardship of humane societies on account
of "neglect, crime, drunkenness, or other vice of
parents," and ends up with the usual provision
about fines and terms in jails. (Code, Section
3795 A; Acts 1895-6, p. 701.) In case it might
be thought better for this interference with par-
ental authority to be conducted under a corporate
name, and with corporate powers, on the ground
of preventing cruelty to children, this may be done
under the provisions of the Code, Section 1105 D,
and no capital stock is required of such corpora-
tion.

210

FATHER AND CHILD 211

What remained of parental authority has
about been swept away by the following Act,
adopted, March 14, 1912:

"Any child adjudged a dependent, a wayward,
or a delinquent child by any court in this State
may, with the consent of the State board of chari-
ties and corrections, be placed by the judge or jus-
tice of said court in the custody of the State board
of charities and corrections, and the said board
is authorized to place such child in a selected
family home or in an institution for the care and
training of destitute children, as the said board
may deem best for the interest of said child,
until the said child shall arrive at the age of
twenty-one years." (Acts 1912, p. 621.)

Nearly all the children are "dependent," and
about the same number may be found to be "way-
ward" or "delinquent," so, practically, all fathers
now hold their children under the sufferance of
the association, which is supposed to be so much
more solicitous for their welfare.

If a child have any property, we have said that
the father, as such, has no interest in, nor con-
trol over, it. It must be attended to by a guar-
dian. This guardian is also entitled to the pos-
session or custody of the child, and the father is
only entitled to this if in the opinion of the Court
he be "fit for the trust." (Section 2603.)

If a misguided father, in the tenderness of his
heart, give to his child under sixteen years of
age cigarettes or tobacco in any form, or a pistol,

2i2 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

or dirk, or bowie-knife, he may be fined as much
as one hundred dollars. (Section 3828 B.) Of
course it is understood that not to pay a fine
means a term in jail. (Section 726.) This
statute is general, and includes fathers because it
does not except them.

It fairly makes one's hair stand on end to read
what may happen to the father, along with any-
body else, who might accidently happen to give
his child "any toy gun, pistol, rifle, or other toy
firearm, if the same shall, by means of powder or
other explosives, discharge blank or ball cart-
ridges, if his child be under twelve years." In
this case a little fine of at least fifty dollars, and
possibly one hundred, awaits him, or a trip to jail
for not less than one month and possibly three
months, or both fine and jail; and for acquiring
any of these articles for the child is a worse
offense yet; a fine of between one 'and two hundred
dollars or jail 'between one and six months, or
both, await the transgressor. (Section 3828 C.)

For fear that the parents were having too easy
and pleasant a time under these humane and en-
lightened provisions, and might yet be enjoying
some spark of comfort and pleasure in having
the children, the Legislature provides in the
Charter of the City of Norfolk an additional
method of curbing them. This provision is as
follows :

"When by the provisions of this Act the City
councils have authority to pass ordinances on any

FATHER AND CHILD 213

subject, they may prescribe any penalty not ex-
ceeding five hundred dollars, except where a pen-
alty is herein otherwise provided for, for a viola-
tion thereof; and on failing to pay the penalty re-
covered, shall be imprisoned in the jail of said
City for any term not exceeding three calendar
months, which penalties may be prosecuted and
recovered with costs in the name of the City of
Norfolk. And the City Councils may subject the
parent or guardian of any minor, or the master
or mistress of any apprentice, to any such penalty
for any such offense committed by such minor or
apprentice." (Charter of the City of Norfolk,
Section 19, Paragraph 20.) There you are
again, — fines and jail for things that the poor
father did not even do, but all the same they can
take all his money away, and fling him in jail for
what his bad boy may have done.

With the mania that exists for copying every
piece of new legislation that can be found, it is
more than likely that most, if not all, of our cities
have this, or some such similar provision. This
is one of the worst of all these enactments. It
embodies all the severity of the ancient system,
which held the parent alone responsible for the
offenses committed by his household, but it is
put in force in an age when the State has para-
lyzed parental authority. The father is no longer
allowed to control his children, but he may be
severely punished for what they do.

So much for the father's power and control

2i4 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

over the persons of his children. We might es-
timate the result of these enactments thus : When
we subtract from the common law rights of the
father the sum of the above statutes the re-
mainder is nothing.

What was once thought a proper way to secure
and enforce parental authority is thus laid down
by Moses, the great lawgiver of Israel, who was,
by divine authority, enunciating the rules which
were to govern a nation :

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son,
which will not obey the voice of his father, or the
voice of his mother, and that, when they have
chastened him, will not hearken unto them : Then
shall his father and his mother lay hold on him,
and bring 'him out unto the elders of his city, and
unto the gate of his place; And they shall say
unto the elders of his city, This our son is stub-
born and rebellious, he will not obey our voice ;
he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the
men of this city shall stone him with stones, that
he die; so shall thou put evil away from among
you, and all Israel shall hear, and fear." (Deuter-
onomy, XXI, 1 8-2 1.)

In giving the foregoing rules of ancient law in
regard to the power of life and death which the
father and husband had over the members of
his family, tjie object has been, not to make it
appear that such would be a desirable thing to re-
establish to-day (we are too far away now from
those times and customs, and society has been too

FATHER AND CHILD 215

long arranged upon another basis, with its elabo-
rate system of courts), but to present to the minds
of the men of the present age the dignity and the
power with which they were formerly surrounded,
so as to enable them to appreciate the striking
contrast thereby afforded; and to submit to them
in practical form the result, as affecting them, of
modern legislation, and to ask whether they think
that with women voting their position in the
world will be improved.

Turning again to the father's relation to the
property of his children, we find that as father
he has no control over it. He is nowhere recog-
nized as ex officio guardian. He might be allowed
to act as guardian or curator, but the real power
in this selection is in a court. (Section 2600,
2602, 2603, 2564.)

The father has no right to bring a suit for his
child; this must be by his "next friend," the stat-
ute not even noticing the father in that connection.
(Section 2614.)

A father has no right to defend a suit brought
against his child; this must be by a guardian ad
litem, and the father is utterly ignored. (Sec-
tions 2618, 2629, 3255, 2435.)

As it is apparently the fixed purpose of the
Legislature to deprive the father of all interest
in the property of his child, as a branch of this
plan it is provided that the wages of a minor shall
not be liable to garnishment or otherwise liable to
the payment of the debts of his parents. (Sec-

216 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

tion 3652 C.) That the debts might have been
contracted for the support of the child is made no
ground of exception to the rule.

A father cannot even make a lease of land be-
longing to his child, without an order of court,
much less sell or encumber any of it. (Sections
2615, 2616.)

A wonderful and striking exception to all this
line of legislation is presented in a miserable little
statute which allows a sum of money belonging
to an infant (arising from the sale of land or
otherwise coming into the hands of a court in
some proceeding therein, when the amount is less
than three hundred dollars) to be paid over by the
court "without the intervention of a guardian" to
one of the parents of the infant (it does not even
say the father) for the education, maintenance,
and support of the child, if it be very young.
(Acts 1908, p. 45.) The reason for this is
probably because the amount is so small that no
guardian would be likely to be found who would
be willing to be made responsible for it.

CHAPTER IV

In the case of the death of an infant that had
property, the father is given the priority which
naturally belongs to him, as there cannot be in
this case any further question between him and
the child. This applies in all cases where the
infants are under eighteen years of age, as under
this age they cannot make a will of real nor
personal property. (Section 2513.)

Taking, therefore, the case of the death of an
infant under eighteen years of age, the law is that
he must die intestate, that is, without a will, as
even if he should make one it would be of no
force. What becomes of his property?

If he have any children it goes to them. If
there be no child, nor the descendant of any child,
then it goes to 'his father.

If there be no father, then to the mother,
brothers, and sisters, these latter sharing equally,
while the father alone inherits. Such is the gen-
eral rule that applies to his real estate. (Sec-
tion 2548.)

But if the infant die without issue, having title
to real estate derived by gift, devise or descent
from one of his parents, the whole of it shall de-
scend and pass to his kindred on the side of that

217

2i 8 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

parent frtfm whom it was so derived, if any such
kindred be living at the death of the infant. If
there be none such kindred, then it shall descend
and pass to his kindred on the side of the other
parent. (Section 2556.) That is, in the case of
the death of an infant nearly twenty-one years old
(on whom the father may have expended thous-
ands in care, support, and education) having title
to a piece of property, — say, the home in which
they live, which he may have acquired by will or
descent from his mother twenty years ago, and
which might have been given to the mother by the
father, — on the death of the infant, the home
might go to the fifteenth cousin on the mother's
side, to the exclusion of the father.

This is an interesting point of law for those
men to think about who, in order to protect their
property from their creditors, are so fond of put-
ting it in the names of their wives. They seek
security. They are really running the risk of
total loss.

So much for real estate. The personal prop-
erty of infants stands on a different basis. As to
this, if the infant be as much as eighteen years old,
he may leave all of this form of property to
whomsoever he pleases. He may be a millionaire,
the father may own nothing; yet the father may
be absolutely ignored. (Section 2513.)

Should the infant die without a will, however,
his personal property follows the general rule
of descent of land and of the law applicable to

FATHER AND CHILD 219

the disposition of the property of all adults, and
passes first to his children and their descendants,
if there be any; and if none, then alone to the
father, and if there be no father, then to the
mother, brothers, and sisters equally. (Sections
2557> 2548.)

The law on the subject of the control and the
management of property owned by a married
woman who is a minor belongs to the chapter on
husband and wife. It will be sufficient to say here
that the Legislature has carefully excluded both
the two persons who naturally and properly
should control and manage it, — the father, or
more properly the husband. These two relations
are treated with the customary hostility and con-
tempt. (Section 2291.)

In the case of damages recovered for the
wrongful death of an infant, the jury may exclude
the father altogether from the fund, or put him
on the same footing as his wife and his other chil-
dren. All of those in this class, however, are
made subordinate to the wife, the husband, and
the children of the deceased. (Section 2904.)

It will be observed that not one word in this
scheme of legislation has been said about lessen-
ing or relieving in any way the father from the
obligation he is under at common law for the sup-
port, the maintenance, and the education of his
children. For all these things he is still liable,
as he has always been. Those who supply these
things to his children can sue him for the money

220 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

due therefor, obtain judgment against him, and
sell his property by the sheriff in order to secure
payment. Not one line of any of these statutes
has relieved him of any thing, nor in any way.
They are all, without exception, hostile provisions
as to him.

On obtaining a decree of divorce, the court may
take all the children from the father, and may
compel him to support them, while they remain in
his wife's possession. (Section 2263.)

As to the rule as to who shall have the custody
of the children, we are not surprised to be told
that it is the welfare of the child that is the
controlling consideration, as the parents, — or at
least the father, — is, of course, no longer deemed
a proper object of any consideration. (Meyer vs.
Meyer, 100 Va., 228; Stringfellow vs. Somewille,
95 Va., 707.)

The consent of the guardian of an infant can
be given to his or her proposed marriage, which
consent will overrule any objection the father or
mother may have. (Section 2218.)

In reference to guardians, it affords food for
thought to consider the fact that it is only in the
presence of death that the Legislature of Virginia
allows a father to nominate a guardian for his
children. So long as the father be alive he is
regarded with suspicion, and his children's prop-
erty must be protected from him. So long as he
be alive the power of appointment is vested in a
court. The statute says: "If the minor is under

FATHER AND CHILD 221

the age of fourteen years, the Court or Judge
may nominate and appoint his guardian; if he be
above that age he may, in the presence of the
Court or Judge, or in writing, acknowledged be-
fore any officer qualified to take acknowledg-
ments, nominate his own guardian, who if ap-
proved by the Court or Judge, shall be appointed
accordingly," etc. (Section 2600.) That is, a
child fourteen years old is presumed to know bet-
ter than his father what guardian should be ap-
pointed to take care of his estate.

The provision as to the appointment by the
father at his death is this:

"Every father may by his last will and testa-
ment appoint a guardian for his child, born, or
to be born, and for such time during his infancy as
he shall direct," etc. (Section 2597.)

There is only one really vigorous principle of
law left alive in which, as between the father and
his children, the father has the proper respect
and regard paid to his position, and that is the
rule which gives to the father a life interest in
all real estate which belonged to his wife, and
passed at her death to her children. This is an
old rule of the common law, which has always
been respected by the statutes. The husband is
called the tenant by the curtesy. The rule is of
the greatest antiquity, and should remain forever.
Expressed in different words, the rule is that as
to the landed property coming into the family
through the wife the father is given superior

222 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

rights to his own children, their rights being prop-
erly held subordinate to those of the head of the
family. (Section 2286 A, 2291, 2293.)

Such are the rules of law existing to-day in the
State of Virginia as to the domestic relation of
parent and child. What are the powers and
rights left to the father, the head of the house,
the progenitor, the ancestor, under them?
Scarcely any. There is not even a decent skeleton
of the former power left.

As between the father and the mother, there
is enough difference still left in favor of the father
•to settle a few questions which might arise be-
tween them; but it is only the phantom of the
real substance of the power which existed in the
very recent past. These differences mainly now
consist in the following rules:

The father as the head of the family is primar-
ily entitled to the care, the custody, and the main-
tenance of the children. (Section 2603; Latham
vs. Latham, 30 Grattan, 307.)

The father by his will may appoint a guardian
for his children, although their mother may be
alive. The mother has no such power when the
father is alive. (Section 2597.)

The father is preferred before the mother in
the descent of property from his children. (Sec-
tions 2548, 2557), except when the property be
real estate given to the infant by the mother, and
she be still alive. (Section 2556.)

The father has rights superior to his wife in

FATHER AND CHILD 223

consenting to the marriage of his infant children.
(Section 2218.)

The father has superior rights as to binding
his children as apprentices, but is subordinated to
the guardian and the Court. (Section 2581.)

It is especially noticeable in connection with this
line of legislation that scarcely a vestige of it ex-
isted in Virginia a generation ago. The relation
of parent and child is as old as the race, and we
may safely assume that nothing new has been dis-
covered about it by the Legislature in the past
few years; yet it has been the subject of incessant
changes. Virginia has laid aside its leadership
and independence of thought in all these matters,
and has, with unbecoming servility, copied the
legislation of States with which we have little in
common.

The whole domestic construction of Virginia,
which produced the splendid men of its past, was
on a totally different basis from all this. The
new conditions afford no promise of improvement
in the discipline, training, mental or moral fiber,
standards, ideals, or purposes of the race. It is
but the legal expression of the modern idea of
laying the emphasis on the first part of life instead
of upon its maturity, the natural effect of which
is to degrade instead of to elevate life as it
matures and progresses.

Up to this point only there have been stated
these rules of law, the old and the new. Let the
reader now consider the natural effect that this

224 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

change of base on the part of society would have
upon the domestic relations themselves, — that is,
study its psychological and sociological effect.

All are agreed in wishing to promote the happi-
ness and the good of the race, and this discussion
is to bring up for consideration what policy would
be most likely to produce that result. The new
laws on the subject do not improve matters, and
this is the case for many reasons, which will now
be given.

Adult persons are but children of a larger
growth, and the children will all, in a few years,
become grown persons. The line dividing them
soon becomes obliterated. Life is fleeting, and
we hurry on from one stage to the next by im-
perceptible, but rapid, movement. The responsi-
bilities of life belong to the adults; they face the
stern realities of life while the .children frolic and
play. The care for the maintenance, the educa-
tion, the training, and the guidance of youth is
with the parents, and primarily with the father,
on whom the heaviest part of it rests. He spends
most of his life in trying to make money enough
to support his family. He is entitled for this
reason, as well as on other accounts, to the un-
disputed leadership and priority in his family. It
it, after all, but a small return to make him.

Under the former system his rights in this re-
spect were fully accorded and regarded by the
State, as well as by the family. Society has now
taken these rights from him, in the interest, as is

FATHER AND CHILD 225

supposed, of his children. His children may have
money; he has no right to use it. On him rests
the responsibility of supporting these children,
but their money is their own, and not his. Be-
tween him and it there is interposed a guardian,
whose business it is to protect the children from
their father, — that is, from the one man of all the
earth who would naturally love them the most,
do the most for them, who would probably lay
down his life for their sakes. But the law dis-
trusts and despises him, and will not let him, as
father, have the slightest say in the matter of his
children's money. If it be lost by the guardian,
it will still be the father's lawful obligation to
support and maintain the children; but the guar-
dian is the man in power. This system has the
inevitable tendency to make the children regard
the guardian as their real protector and their
father as unworthy of trust, and a person to be
protected against. It does not help the case much
for the father to be also the guardian. His rights
should be inherent, ex offiico, not derived from a
court, but due by the fact of parentage.

Allowing full effect to the forces brought into
play on the group of persons involved in this mat-
ter, supposing some one other than the father to
be the guardian, we would have as the natural
consequence of this legislation the following situa-
tion:

The wife would lightly look upon her husband
as being considered in law unworthy or incompe-

226 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

tent to have immediate, direct management of his
child's property, and she would have respect for
the guardian as being by that office superior to
her husband.

The child would disregard his father, and look
to the guardian as his protector against his father.

The father would dislike the guardian, who is
his supplanter.

The guardian would hold the father in slight
regard, having supplanted him.

Closely observe now the immediate and natural
effect on the minds of the parent and the child
of the rules of law applicable to their relation.
Let us begin by saying that real power, lawful
power, power recognized by courts and govern-
ment, has a profound effect upon the human mind.
It is calculated to inspire respect, if not awe.
Clothe a parent with this power, and he becomes
a more important person. A consciousness of
the dignity of his position tends to make him
strive to measure up to its requirements. This
was the former policy. The father was a sover-
eign in his own home. No one questioned his
authority, because the government itself recog-
nized it. His wife and his children respected him,
because he held a position of tremendous import-
ance to them. He was their judge and head, and,
more than that, he stood as a tower of strength
to them, protecting them absolutely from the out-
side civil authorities. The civil and criminal juris-
prudence as administered by the State did not

FATHER AND CHILD 227

reach to them. Between it and them towered the
father, the head of the house; and he could pro-
tect them from it. Besides this, all property
rights being centered in the head of the house,
everything contributed to make him a natural and
proper object of respect. He had the power,
and power is generally respected.

The issue presented by the change which has
taken place is the substitution of a court for the
authority of the father. Under the former system,
the father was the court. Now it is another man,
called a judge, who has no interest in the affairs
of the family, most likely never saw nor heard
of the infants whose matters are brought before
him, and who, instead of deciding what might
be called the more normal subjects of litigation,
finds himself called upon to administer the do-
mestic affairs of various households. All this is,
of course, attended with expense to the parties
involved, and takes up the time of the court.
Who believes that, in the great majority of cases,
the affair is attended to by the court any better
than it would be by the father of the child?
Is any one then really benefited by having de-
graded the parent from his position, and having
transferred to a strange judge the powers which
naturally belonged to him? The Legislature
would probably answer that the children were
benefited, or at least that they were led to be-
lieve that the children would be benefited when
they adopted these rules. They might say that

228 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

the father no longer has the power to punish se-
verely his children; but the Corporation and Cir-
cuit Court Judges and the Federal Judges, on
the verdict of a jury, have the right, and exercise
it in aggravated cases, or if the ends of justice de-
mand it. The father has no right to beat his
children, but the Police Courts have. (Section
3902 A.) The father has not the right to confine
and severely discipline bad children, but the Prison
Association has. (Section 4173 D.) The father
has no right to make the child work for him, but
his master may, if he be bound apprentice. (Sec-
tion 2581.) And so on.

These powers over the child, then, still exist,
and they should exist; but they exist in the civil
authorities instead of in the parent of the child.
The judge, the jailer, the Prison Association, etc.,
usurp the powers of the father, leaving him with
a mass of responsibilities, but no rights, powers,
nor privileges.

CHAPTER V

What is the effect of this policy on the parties
immediately involved? Which system will be
more productive of a race of independent and
powerful men, and of love and regard in the re-
lation? This is, after all, the most important
point in the whole matter.

Take first the case of the father, and analyze
the situation as to him. Under the one system
the law, society, government, put his children ex-
clusively under his power. They are his, against
the world. The policeman could not touch them,
the sheriff could not touch them, the courts
could not touch them. Their property is his
property. They must obey him. There must
be no disputing and questioning his authority,
they must obey him just like the well drilled
soldiers and sailors obey their officers, and as
in every fixed relation of life where there is a
gradation of power and dignity and authority the
order given by lawful authority is to be obeyed.

This is a satisfactory rule and system as to the
fathers. They would approve of it, and naturally
love those who ministered to them in this way.
They are exalted among their fellow-men by being
at the head of a group of other persons. There
is every reason why they should, under this sys-

230 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

tern, love and cherish their children. There is a
great deal of advantage to the father in being
a father, and the more children he had, the bet-
ter off he would be. He would have that much
larger army, that many more allies, that many
more assistants, that much more dignity, power,
and wealth. There would be a great deal of dig-
nity in it for him; and as the rule would extend
to grandchildren as well as children, the older he
grew, the more his power would increase — the
number of his supporters and allies would in-
crease year by year, and the decline of life would
be mellowed and warmed by power and influence.

The very power he had over his children would
make him love them more. He would feel their
dependence upon him, and they would look to him
for protection. All this is in addition to that
great natural affection which tends to spring from
the fact of parentage under any system.

The effect, too, directly upon the character of
the father is most important. Under this system,
the Romans became the conquerors of the earth.
Its natural tendency was to produce mighty men.
The honors and the rewards of life, increasing as
one advances in age, tend to keep alive to the last
the utmost vigor that one possesses. This was a
system of continued expansion with the flight of
years. This system had the natural tendency to
make parents love their children in the highest
measure, and to make of the fathers the best that
was in them. Thus they became more honorable,

FATHER AND CHILD 231

admirable, and lovable characters for their chil-
dren to contemplate.

Contrast with that the present system. The
father has upon his shoulders all the burdens
which the relation naturally carries with it. His
children's property is their own, carefully guarded
from him. He has little or no direct power over
them, and as to this little he is liable to become
entangled in disputes with his wife. The civil
authorities watch him with a jealous eye, standing
ready to fine him, fling him into prison, and other-
wise punish him, if he does not deal with the chil-
dren and their property strictly according to the
provisions of long and formidable statutes. The
whole of society demands of him incessant sacri-
fices for the children — everything for them, noth-
ing for him; forever their interests, never his.
He becomes an object of pity or contempt. Any-
thing is good enough for him.

Is all this calculated to produce love in him for
his children? We think not, and believe that
what is left exists as the remainder of a certain
fund of natural affection after the inevitable effect
of this legislation has been subtracted from it.

Then what is the effect on the mind and the
character of the fathers? They see themselves
thrust aside, as if of no account, and the world
attending mainly to the children. They are also
reduced to their lowest terms, to their minimum,
and are taught by society that it is only the young

23 2 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

who are of value. The fathers shrink up, and are
not encouraged to be the greatest that they could
be.

Turn now to the effect upon the children.
Under which system will they love their parents
more?

We know that under the former system they
not only loved them, honored and revered them,
but actually, in the East, worshiped them as divini-
ties.

Under the present system, they are taught that
it is their parents' duty to give up everything for
them. They see the court-appointed guardian
standing between their little fortunes and their
father, they hear of fathers being arrested and
flung in jail for deserting or failing to support
their minor children, under that beautiful statute,
Section 3795 C; they know about the title to the
home being put in their mother's name, to keep the
creditors off; they hear the father's authority in
the home questioned by their mother. They know
that their father cannot protect them against the
policeman; and, in short, they never think of him
as having any special power or authority at all,
but they may think of him as having no other par-
ticular rights and privileges than those of having
to work very hard to support the family. Under
this system they will naturally feel for their father
the minimum of honor, respect, and love. We
even read in the daily papers of their getting out
warrants, and having their fathers arrested and

FATHER AND CHILD 233

hauled before the courts, in connection with the
family rows which so frequently occur.

A sample of these rows, and the dreadful con-
sequences to which they lead, all probably due to
the fundamental defect of the children not having
been taught to obey the father, is presented by the

following accounts :

\

"Lawrenceville, Va., Oct. 22. — X., a well-
known farmer, has been arrested on the charge of
shooting his son and small daughter, as a result
of a general family altercation at his home about
four miles north of B. yesterday.

"It is reported that the young man is seriously
wounded, while the child is only slightly hurt.
Conflicting reports have been received here con-
cerning the condition of both victims, however,
the scene of the shooting being a considerable dis-
tance from Lawrenceville.

"General sympathy is expressed for the son and
the little girl, who are receiving the best of care at
the hands of the neighbors, relatives, and friends,
who have gone to the X. home to offer their
assistance."

Many cases have occurred where fathers have
been killed in these family controversies by their
sons. No one ever appears to take his side about
anything. A family row proves, of itself, that the
husband and father is the cause of it, and in the
wrong; and he seems to be regarded as getting

234 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

only what he deserves, no matter what happens
to him.

"Raleigh, N. C., January 29. — X. Y. was shot
and instantly killed this afternoon at his home
near Eagle Rock, this county, by his son, Z. The
two quarreled about some wood, the son ran up-
stairs, procured a revolver, and came back with
it, opening fire on his father.

"The fourth shot penetrated his heart. The
deceased was fifty years old, the young man just
twenty-one. He has given himself up to the offi-
cers of the law and he will be brought
to Raleigh."

Not alone in the family circle is the bad effect
of the new ideas in regard to the bringing up of
children felt, but by the whole community; and
that too in regard' to its most vital interests.
Young people fully old enough to know what they
ought and ought not to do have been encouraged
to commit crimes by a feeling of security and
immunity which they rely on being extended to
them on account of their youth. In France a few
months ago a young man, under age, strangled his
aunt who had refused to lend him money. When
sentenced to the guillotine he said that he did not
think that they would punish him so severely as
that, on account of his youth; that he thought, at
the worst, if he committed the crime, he would
only be sent to a reformatory.

FATHER AND CHILD 235

In this city acts of lawlessness of a nature one
would never have thought of as likely to be com-
mitted by children are frequently perpetrated.
One's highest form of property right is probably
the ownership of a home, or other form of landed
property. One would think investments in this
secure, and would be surprised to learn that one
of the dangers connected with such an investment
would be found in the possibility of depredations
upon it by children, — that your house might be at-
tacked by children. Not long ago a case of this
very nature, similar to many others which had
occurred, was brought before the Police Court,
where serious damage had been done to property
by a set of children stealing the fixtures out of
it. The mild reproof given the youthful offenders
was enough to encourage and embolden others.
A few years ago in this city every night for a
month or so a fire in the down-town section broke
out. The existence of the city itself was thus
endangered time and again, and the greatest dis-
aster was only avoided by the alertness and effici-
ency of the firemen. At last the cause of the con-
stant ringing of the fire-alarm was unearthed by
the detectives, and a band of children, who had
amused themselves in this way, was brought to
light. Their punishment was of the lightest na-
ture.

A few days after this was written the papers
told us of the following state of affairs in our
neighboring city across the river:

236 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

"Efforts are being made by the police to appre-
hend some of the boys who are destroying prop-
erty about the city.

"Complaint after comlaint has been made at
headquarters regarding the destructive element.
The boys have been throwing rocks at doors, and
otherwise damaging property with fireworks. In
spite of the efforts that have been made to appre-
hend them, they have managed to elude arrest.

"It is likely that severe penalties will be im-
posed upon the perpetrators of these offenses, if
they are caught."

From these local matters we pass to the fol-
lowing of a national nature, which we believe it
would never in the past, under a better system of
home discipline, have occurred to such a youth to
imagine :

"New York, December 12. — Y., a seventeen-
year-old boy, who is alleged to have declared that
he was going over to New Jersey and shoot Presi-
dent-elect Wilson, was arrested here this after-
noon and held without bail. A loaded revolver
was found in his pocket.

"The youth was standing in front of a police
station shivering in the cold when a detective ques-
tioned him. 'This is not a fit country to live in/
he declared, according to the detective. 'It's no
place for me to work, I cannot go back to Russia,
so I would rather go to jail; but I would like

FATHER AND CHILD 237

to shoot Wilson and my boss and all the judges
first1 "

"Atlanta, Ga., December 21, 1912. — The un-
usual spectacle of a small child on trial for taking
the life of a playmate was presented here to-day,
when seven-year-old X. was arraigned for the
killing of Z., aged seven, at C. S., near here, De-
cember 5. Judge J. T. P. made no decision in the
case pending an examination of the child's mental
condition.

"It was brought out that the X. boy was an
almost constant user of tobacco in all forms. The
boys are said to have quarreled, after which
young X. ran into the house and securing a rifle,
stood on the porch and shot the Y. boy as he
passed the house, the bullet entering the brain."

"Charleston, S. C., December 27. — A. was shot
and seriously wounded here to-night with a parlor
rifle by B., aged ten. When the B. boy was
brought to the police station by his father he told
the desk sergeant that A. and some other boys
had been bullying him. Remembering the parlor
rifle which he had received as a Christmas gift,
the boy secured it and shot A. in the abdomen."

"Richmond, Va., February 5. — Caught placing
spikes on the rails of the R. F. & P. last night,
A. B., aged five, confessed to the detectives that
he had made four attempts to wreck trains, en-
dangering many lives, just 'to see the engine top-
ple over while going fast/

23 8 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

"Two weeks ago he wrecked a shifting engine,
the engineer and the fireman having narrow es-
capes from death.

"His attempts were made on Belvidere Street,
where the road passes through the city.

"The youngster was given into the custody of
his parents who were warned to keep him away
from the railroad tracks."

CHAPTER VI

The situation in regard to keeping children in
order is steadily becoming worse, and under the
provisions of an Act intended for the benefit of
Children their control and punishment when under
seventeen years old, become more and more diffi-
cult. This act, approved March 16, 1910, is in
part as follows:

uBe it enacted by the general assembly of Vir-
ginia, That every court of record of general
criminal jurisdiction, or the judge thereof in vaca-
tion, and the police and justices' courts are hereby
authorized and empowered in their discretion to
commit to the care and custody of any society,
association, or reformatory approved by the State
board of charities and corrections, and chartered
under the laws of this State for the care, custody
and maintenance, protection, discipline or better-
ment of children, any child under seventeen years
of age who is charged with any felony, except
rape, and never having been heretofore convicted
in any court of a misdemeanor or felony under the
laws of Virginia, or who is charged with or con-
victed of a petty crime or misdemeanor or any
crime or infamous offenses punishable as a mis-
demeanor or as a felony and not exclusively as a
felony, and all cases of larceny, or any child under

239

24o SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

seventeen years of age who is vicious or depraved,
a persistent truant, destitute, exposed to immoral
or vicious influence, or who is generally ill-treated
or neglected by his parents, guardian, custodian,
or declared by such to be incorrigible, provided
that such commitment shall cease when the child
s'hall reach the age of twenty-one years ; and such
societies and associations may place under con-
tract such children until they reach the age of
twenty-one years in suitable family homes, institu-
tions or training schools for the care of children,
but whenever such child shall be so placed else-
where a report of such action s;hall be made to the
State board of charities and corrections in such
form as may be required by it. All juvenile of-
fenders, managed or controlled under the pro-
vision of this act, shall be deemed not to be
criminals and shall not be treated as such.

"No court, unless the offense is aggravated, or
the ends of justice demand otherwise, shall sen-
tence or commit a child under seventeen years of
age charged with or proven to have been guilty
of any crime named in section one to a jail, work-
house, or police station, or send such child on to
the grand jury, nor sentence such child to the peni-
tentiary; but such child may be committed, after
hearing is 'had, as is hereinafter provided, to any
society or association formed for the purpose
specified in section one of this act; or the court,
or the judge above mentioned, may commit such
a child to a reformatory under the laws now or

FATHER AND CHILD 241

hereinafter provided for such commitment.
Nothing herein shall prevent the imposition of
such punishment as is prescribed by the laws of
the State of Virginia for the offense with which
such child is charged, when no society or associa-
tion or reformatory will accept such child, and
under such circumstances the court may make such
commitment or disposition of such child as it may
deem best.

"That for the purpose of aiding the court, or
the judge mentioned above, in a proper disposi-
tion of cases and matters enumerated in section
one of this act, the societies or associations or
reformatories referred to in said section are here-
by authorized and empowered, with the consent
of the court, to designate one or more of their
officers or employees, probation officers for the
court, whose duty shall be to make such investiga-
tion of cases involving children under seventeen
years of age as the court may direct, to be present
in court in order to represent the interest of the
child when the case is heard, to furnish the court
such information and assistance as the court or
judge may require, and to take charge of any such
child before and after the trial as may be directed
by the court, or judge above mentioned, and to
perform such other duties as the court may confer
upon him. No probation officer shall receive any
compensation for his services from the treasury
of the State, except when traveling by order of
the court, when he shall, upon certificate of such

242 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

judge, receive such mileage as is paid Common-
wealth's witnesses for similar services and in
the same manner.

"That the court, or the judge above mentioned,
shall also have power and is hereby authorized,
at its discretion, to relea'se any juvenile for any
offense mentioned in section one of this act under
the care of a probation officer for a probationary
period not exceeding one year, who shall cause
such child to return to court at the end of such
term either for sentence or dismissal; such re-
leased child shall be under the jurisdiction of the
court for such period, and shall be subject to such
rules and regulations touching the welfare of the
child as may be prescribed by the court. In case
such a released child shall fail to keep or disre-
gard the terms of his probation, the court, or the
judge thereof in vacation, shall have the power
to cause such diild to be brought before it for
further proceedings, and to be dealt with in such
manner as may appear to be for the best interest
of the child."

The next section of this enactment provides for
the appointment of "probationary officers" from
among the police force of the city and defines
their duties. Then it is provided that if at the
trial of the child the evidence be sufficient to
justify a conviction or to send the child on to a
grand jury, "the court is empowered to act under
the provisions of this statute as to the disposition
of said child." A right of appeal is reserved in

FATHER AND CHILD 243

favor of the diild from any judgment which may
be rendered against him, and the appellate court
is given the same powers as the original court as
to the disposition of the child.

Any attempt to remove the child is made a
"contempt of court," a favorite modern method
of subverting constitutional guarantees of the
liberty and rights of the citizen by thus arbi-
trarily placing him in the power, and at the dis-
cretion, of a judge, who can proceed to punish
him by confinement or fine without the interven-
tion of a jury. The less we hear of this in our
enactments the better, for this extension of the
doctrine of contempt of court is a step toward
tyranny.

The next section puts the associations for re-
ceiving children under the supervision of the
State board of chanties and corrections, and re-
quires them to furnish statements as to their
condition and management to any court or judge
upon demand.

"Upon petition of any reputable citizen under
oath that any of the provisions of this act have
been, or are being, violated by any one, or by any
institution, the court, or the judge thereof in
vacation, having jurisdiction over the locality
where such persons reside or such institution is
located, may cause such person or institution by
proper process to appear before the court, or the
judge thereof in vacation, at such time, and at
such place within such locality as the process may

244 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

name, and may enter judgment or order as the
ends of justice may require.

"The court, or any judge authorized to act
hereunder in vacation, and all officers performing
any act or executing any process under this act,
are vested with >all incidental powers necessary to
the effectual execution of the object and purpose of
this act."

What this means it would be difficult to say,
except that a veiled and formidable power is given
to the court or the judge to do something to some-
body, without the safeguard of a trial by jury.

"This act shall be construed liberally as to its
objects and powers, to the end that its purpose
may be carried out, to wit: that the care, custody,
and discipline of the child may approximate as
nearly as may be that which should be by its
parents, and prevent the child, where possible,
from the stigma of jail and the contaminating in-
fluences of association with criminals.

"Words in this act importing the masculine
gender must be applied to include girls under
seventeen years of age." (Acts 1910, 434-7.)

A child over sixteen years old, strong in body
and mind, who well knows the difference between
right and wrong, having committed a felony, —
the killing of an old relative for her money, for
instance, — is, according to this statute, to be
treated as nearly as possible with the care, custody,
and discipline which it should receive from its
parents. Will the Legislature please define what

FATHER AND CHILD 245

are the rights and powers of the parents under
the law of Virginia under such, or any other,
circumstances? We all know perfectly well what
the powers, rights, and duties of the father ought
to be. The law and the customs of the race up to
a few years ago taught us that. But the special
work of the Legislature has of late years been
to destroy this power. What is now left of it
that could be intelligently set before one to aid
him in understanding what that statute really
enacts, when it uses the words "discipline of
parents?"

To understand this act, it might be well to say
that a felony is any act punishable by death or
confinement in the penitentiary. Other offenses,
less severely punished, are classed as misde-
meanors.

This act has been in force in Virginia for only
three years. The record of the Acts of that
Session of the Legislature shows that it was ap-
proved by the Governor the same day on which
he approved other Acts covering 122 pages of
closely printed matter.

Under its provisions a privileged class of
criminals is legally established, — all persons under
seventeen years old. Jury trials as to these are
swept away, and the judge is given a discretion
as to their disposition. Equality before the law
is overthrown. If the youthful criminal, now
specially declared by the act not to be a criminal,
nor to be treated as one, have attractive qualities.,

246 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

he or she may be dealt with leniently, while it is
stated that nothing in the act "shall prevent the
imposition of such punishment as is prescribed by
the laws of the State of Virginia for the offense
with which such child is charged, when no society
or association or reformatory will accept such
child, and under such circumstances the court may
make such commitment or disposition of such
child as it may deem best." A youth is thus to
be punished, not according to a fixed rule of law,
but according to whether such a society choose to
come forward and shield him, or not. An ugly
and unattractive child may commit some lesser
crime and be sent to the penitentiary. A fully
developed youth, 16 years, n months, and 29
days old, may commit murder, highway robbery,
arson, burglary, or piracy, and may be allowed to
go practically unpunished. Every youth in the
Commonwealth, although he or she may have long
since arrived at a full knowledge of right and
wrong, is practically allowed to commit one mur-
der, or burn up one house, or help to hold up and
rob one train, or blow up one house with dyna-
mite, or derail one train, or commit any other
one felony or misdemeanor, with comparative im-
punity. So long as it can be proved that he or
she has never ubeen heretofore convicted in any
court of a misdemeanor or felony under the laws
of Virginia," they are, by this act, more or less
immune from punishment. A young ruffian from
a neighboring State who has committeed crimes

FATHER AND CHILD 247

there, and been convicted and punished for them,
or offenders in Virginia who escaped conviction,
would still have their one crime allowed them for
which, under this statute, they would not be
adequately punished.

The court is expressly prohibited from punish-
ing them by the usual methods of punis'hmerit,
"unless the offense is aggravated, or the ends of
justice demand otherwise." What does this
mean? Criminal laws should be clear, and crimes
have heretofore been as sharply and accurately
defined as possible. This act leaves it in the dis-
cretion of the trial judge to decide the indefinite
question, what crime is an aggravated crime, and
when the ends of justice require real instead of
formal punishment. We are all in danger of fall-
ing under a new form of tyranny when those who
take our lives or injure our property are to be
punished only according to discretionary powers
given to the criminal courts. The system of law
we live under has carefully confined discretionary
power to courts of Chancery, and held the courts
of law, especially on their criminal side, to acting
only according to fixed rules. We are courting
danger when we abandon that principle.

Take, for example, the murder of a father by
a wayward son whom he had corrected and tried
to make behave himself. This is >a felony, and
only a felony. It is therefore included as to the
protection of its perpetrator by this act. Is not
any real, deliberate, premeditated murder a

248 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

serious enough offense to deserve punishment,
without the necessity of proving that the particular
"offense is aggravated," or that "the ends of
justice demand" other punishment than being sent
to a reformatory?

So serious are these matters that it hardly seems
worth while noticing that this act also authorizes
the breaking up of families by taking the children
away from their parents on a variety of grounds.
If your child be "vicious or depraved, a persistent
truant, destitute, exposed to immoral or vicious
influence," or if he or she be "generally ill-treated
or neglected by his parents, guardian, custodian,
or declared by such to be incorrigible," he or she
may be taken from you, and put in a reformatory.

This act and the others of a kindred nature
herein criticised are not to be judged singly, one
by one, but as a whole. Together they constitute
the system, such as it is, which has been worked
out to overthrow the natural construction of
domestic life which has come down to us through
the ages, and which was in harmony with the rules
laid down for man's guidance in the Bible. All
the matters now clumsily provided for under such
enactments as these fell under, and were regulated
by, the paternal authority, which so many of the
modern legislatures, at the request apparently of
anybody who says "women" or "children" to
them, seem willing to permit to be utterly extin-
guished. The father had jurisdiction of all these
matters thus recently delegated to courts and

FATHER AND CHILD 249

judges. In attempting to rewrite and remold
society, to destroy the family and the parental
authority, what grotesque efforts are made by
those who write these laws! What extravagant
provisions and what unintended consequences and
conclusions can be drawn from the words they
recklessly employ! The reading of these enact-
ments suggests to one's mind the confused twist-
ings, turnings, and crossings of the footprints left
upon soft earth by one who has wandered about it
in the darkness. There in the clear light of his-
tory, common sense, and the Bible lies the straight
and simple path of the paternal authority, leading
to peace and order, through the tangled jungle of
courts, judges, probation officers, juvenile courts,
State boards, police justices, policemen, and all the
other cumbersome paraphernalia and machinery
of the illogical attempt at a system which is being
built up to overshadow and obliterate it.

When the turn is taken to the left from the
level, well-graded, and well-known highway by
which the nations of the earth have moved
through their -several developments, and the coach
of State began rolling rapidly along the down
grade on which it is now speeding, in what can it
end but an abyss ?

When the inevitable reaction against the policy
of attacking husbands and fathers sets in, this act
should be one of the first repealed. We doubt
very much if there ever were even plausible
ground for its adoption. The age limit is much

25o SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

too high. The juries of the country could always
be relied on not to be too severe with young per-
sons. Keeping children out of jail and from its
evil effects is very well, but some adequate sub-
stitute in the way of proper punishment ought to
be adopted instead of the provisions of this act.
Real offenders should not lie on a bed of roses,
and no one's rights are safe either as to life or
property, if the law allow any class of privileged
offenders. Men, women, and children all should
be made to obey the law.

CHAPTER VII

The responsibility for the laxity in the bring-
ing up of children we charge to the women.
The women, as it were, bring in as allies with
them the children in the modern attacks upon
men. It is in relation to the women and the
children that men are attacked, and the tendency
of the women is to break down the better disci-
pline which the men would enforce in the family
life. The present disorder is the result of
women's domestic government. They are too
weak and too tender-hearted to control wayward
children; and, as the father's authority declines,
the recklessness and the lawlessness of children
increases. No observer of the course of affairs of
the last score of years has failed to note a serious
decline in the manners and the actions of children.
They are getting to be as much a byword as the
American husband. The other day a French
nurse on an ocean steamer reproved the children
under her care by telling them that they must not
do such or such a thing, because people might, on
account of their being so bad, think that they
were American children.

Thinking men have for a long time expressed
concern at the general disorder, the laxity of
discipline, the lowering of standards, and a vari-

251

252 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

ety of other alarming national symptoms which
indicate an unwholesome condition of affairs in
this country. What is the matter with the United
States? This is answered in three words, — too
much women; not too many, — too much.

The great ship of state of the United States of
America is in greater risk of shipwreck from run-
ning blindly and recklessly upon the sands of
women and children than from any other danger
now visible above the horizon. When this coun-
try is fully run on the basis, and according to the
ideas, of women and children it will be time for
all sensible men to move out of it.

The effect on the child himself is probably the
worst thing about the whole system. It gives to
extreme youth an idea of its own importance that
is radically wrong. It fosters independence of
children from their parents, encourages disobedi-
ence, impatience under and contempt for author-
ity, and produces bad, disrespectful, and dis-
obedient children, who grow up to be unruly, bad
citizens, strikers and lynchers. In the training
within the domestic circle the foundations should
be laid for good citizenship. Law-abiding citizens
must have this training in the paternal authority
of their own homes. Break down .paternal au-
thority, and you break down respect for all au-
thority. Break up and ruin the authority which
should exist in the head of every family, and you
break up the authority which should exist in the
State itself.

FATHER AND CHILD 253

There can be no subtraction from, nor addi-
tion to, the sum total of the rights, the privileges,
the liabilities, and the duties enjoyed by, or laid
upon, mankind as a whole. They have all existed
at all times in the past, and will exist at all times
in the future. The only real effect produced by
these changes is to cause a rearrangement of
them, — taking them from one and putting them
on another, shifting around merely.

The modern plan is to take every power from
the father and give it to the judge. Judges are
appointed to preside over courts, in order to
decide law suits and criminal prosecutions. This
is enough to keep them busy. This new scheme is
to add to these duties the unjudicial one of mak-
ing them the nurses and guardians of all the
minors within their jurisdictions. What interest
is a judge going to take in the care and custody
of a lot of infants, or in the care and manage-
ment of their estates, compared to the interest
that would be taken by the fathers who brought
them into existence, and who are responsible for
their support?

The home broken up, what becomes of the
children? Here is the situation in California,
which has but just now taken a further step in
the destruction of the domestic circle by entitling
women to vote :

"Sacramento, Cal., January 13. — That fifty-one
per cent, of the boys in the State reform schools

254 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

owe their condition to homes broken up by divorce
is the finding of the Board of Charities and Cor-
rections, which has filed a report with the gov-
ernor for the year. It says :

" 'The general social and economic conditions,
the lack of home training, the breaking down of
the home and the indiscriminate rush for cheap
amusements and unbridled pleasures, are given as
the causes for the downfall of boys and girls
of to-day. Statistics show that fifty-one per cent
of the boys in one of our State reform schools
were from homes broken up by divorce.' "

CHAPTER VIII

Two large buildings claim jurisdiction over the
subject of marriage and divorce, — the Church and
the Court-house. The Church, in what has now
become a rather feeble and faltering way, is still
on the side of the man. The Court-house is on
the side of the woman. Another large building,
the theatre throws the whole of its usually bale-
ful influence in this instance on the side of the
Court-house, a building with which it is not much
accustomed to ally itself. Between these two
great millstones, as we may call them, husbands
and fathers are being ground to pieces. The
nether millstone, the Court-house, is particularly
severe on the husbands, while the upper millstone,
the theatre, reserves its severest treatment for
the fathers.

It is easy to see why the theater holds the
fathers, instead of the husbands, up to public
hatred. Presenting love scenes, and working out
love stories, is the principal stock in trade of
theaters. A man, just at the age he is apt to
marry, is brought upon the stage, where he meets
a damsel in the corresponding condition of life.
Beyond this age the stage has little use for men
and women. Prior to it, it has none. The bur-
den of nearly every modern drama is the play

255

256 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

of the attractive forces bringing these two units
finally together. To attack husbands, as the
Legislature attacks them, would tend to ruin by
presenting in an undesirable light their one special
theme, — that of making married men or, more
strictly speaking, engaged men, out of the stage
heroes. The playwrights seldom or never at-
tempt to represent the happiness the husbands fi-
nally have when their dreams are realized. They
stop short of this, and warily present the happi-
ness which the heroes think they are going to
have, — "Man never is, but always to be blest."

But with the father the situation, and their
treatment of him, is very different. He belongs
to the post-graduate class, — a class for which the
stage has little use, and no sympathy. The stage
is ante-nuptial, except where an unhappy marriage
is attacked. The father is therefore out of its
zone of active operations, and as he can so easily
be presented as interfering with, obstructing, or
even perverting what it considers the proper cur-
rent of the flow of his beautiful daughter's affec-
tions, he soon passes over into the usual position
of a formal enemy. He therefore is made to
appear before us as a hard-hearted creature, who
for unworthy motives desires to marry his
daughter to the villain; or as being so stupid that
he thinks she loves the villain instead of the hero;
or as a terrible drunkard, who wrecks the family;
or as a weak creature supported by his unselfish
and overworked daughter; or as a gambler whose

FATHER AND CHILD 257.

passion for play impoverishes the invalid mother,
supported alone by the saintly daughter; or as a
criminal whose career of shame or violence
threatens at any time to become known and to
blight the life of his angel child; and so on, and
so forth, ad infnitum.

It is not quite so apparent why the Legislature
has been more severe in its treatment of husbands
than of fathers, unless this character presents
more clearly the question of the strong against
the weak, with no regard to the wisdom of the
policy of having a recognized head. In most
cases the two characters of husband and father
are borne by one and the same person, but we
find that it is the husband who is primarily at-
tacked; the position of the father is merely con-
sequential, and falls into the same general line
of thought and treatment as that of the husband.
The Legislature, seeing so many persons marry,
seems to think that nothing it may do will ever
have any effect in breaking up the natural tendency
which causes young men to love young women.
Here, they seem to think, is a subject of legisla-
tion which cannot escape them, and which they
can regulate to their hearts' content. Their se-
vere rules are intended to operate upon a class
supposed to be the best able of any to bear hard-
ships,— young men, — the class out of which the
armies of the world have always been formed.
They need no assistance, and deserve no sympa-
thy. Pile everything on them therefore that can

258 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

be put upon them. They are young men as con-
trasted with old men, and men as contrasted with
women. Therefore put everything in the way of
a burden, a duty, or a liability upon them. Their
shoulders are broad, and they can bear it. If
they cannot, it is their own fault.

Apparently with some such idea in its mind,
that body has proceeded step by step, — first, to
take away nearly all the property rights which a
husband acquired by virtue of the marriage; and,
after practically exhausting this field of legisla-
tion, it 'began these unheard-of attacks directly
upon the persons of .husbands, by putting them in
jail for failure to do their duty, and so forth.
One would think from these enactments that, to
need all this regulating, the husbands of the
United States must have been the worst set of
men in the world, while the fact has probably
been that they have been the most long-suffering
and patient men who ever walked the earth.

If the fathers were declared by law to be en-
titled to their children's money, it would fall far
short of compensating them for the support of
the children. It is going to be the children's any-
way, after the parents' death; then why are the
children so protected from their parents? If it
be all needed in the support of the family, let
it be so used.

If the fathers were given again their proper
powers and rights with reference to the children,
nearly all the associations formed to take care of

FATHER AND CHILD 259

them, and to take them away from their parents,
could go out of business. It would be much bet-
ter for the race if they would spend their time
and energies and their surprising skill in effecting
legislation in the task of rehabilitating the fathers
of America in those rights which they have been
so zealous in taking away from them.

An actual case, beautifully illustrating these en-
lightened principles in dealing with the heads of
families, is embalmed for the philosophic student
of our social and domestic construction in a judg-
ment which can be found in Judgment Docket 5,
page 52, of the Circuit Court for Norfolk
County, where a daughter, after having been
taken care of by her old father until her mar-
riage, after that event sued him and got judgment
against him for $151.70, being an amount of
money which she had derived from an estate
which had come into his hands as her guardian,
and which he had spent. Her father, being
embarrassed, was unable to pay the judgment,
and he sold it to an outside person. After
having brought up, educated, and supported this
child, he was liable to be, and was, sued by
her for this sum, as if she were an outside
creditor. No doubt the old man felt all the
bitterness of the pang experienced by Lear when
he said: "How sharper than a serpent's tooth
it is to have a thankless child!"

Indeed, there is no reason why the old man

260 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

might not, in addition to suffering the judgment
against him, have also been put into the penitenti-
ary, on the ground of having embezzled the
money which belonged to his daughter.

If the father occupied the proper relation to
the children's estates, there would be little need
of guardians, guardian ad litem, curators, and
next friends. The world could then conduct its
affairs on an adult basis.

The Legislature could render eminent service
to this Commonwealth by never passing another
statute on this subject, and instead of doing so
by carefully revising all these laws, repealing most
of them, and amending the others, so as to re-
establish paternal authority in the home, the foun-
tainhead of all respect for civil authority in the
State.

These legislative ideas come to Virginia from
the Northern and Western States. The theory
they all go on is that the father, instead of being
the real parent of the children, is merely a trustee
with reference to them, and if he do not admin-
ister his trust according to these legislative ideas
of how he should administer it, he will not only
be turned out of office, — that is, lose the custody
of the child, — but be heavily fined and flung into
prison.

What the theory is that they are trying to
work out in respect to the relation which the hus-
band bears to his wife we are really unable to
say. He does not seem to have any dignified

FATHER AND CHILD 261

position at all with regard to her. To make him
a mere drudge, who has to earn enough to supply
her wants, and be held liable to imprisonment the
instant he fail in this regard, seems to be about
what is aimed at.

Surely we have nothing to learn from States
which hold such views, except to take warning
from their example.

For three hundred years the State of Vir-
ginia managed its domestic affairs on an entirely
different theory, and found no need for criminal
proceedings to make the men of our State willing
to support the women they married, and the chil-
dren which were given them. And we do not
need them now.

Who is there of any observation who believes
that these new laws are of benefit to the body
politic? Where is the person of any experience
who has not commented upon the decline in the
manners and behavior of children in the past
few years? The more the State legislates them
away from the parental authority, the worse the
children are becoming. The interference of the
State diminishes the attention and the training
they receive from their parents, and no one else
takes enough interest in them to supply the loss.
Legislate them entirely from their parents, break
up the home completely, and we will live among a
race of barbarians, who, having learned to submit
to no domestic authority in their youth, will re-
sist all civil authority when they become men.

262 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

We are willing to give the credit of good in-
tentions to the persons who secure the line of
legislation which is here criticised, but we believe
they do not appreciate the effect of their efforts.
Some distressing case comes to their notice, and,
in order to relieve such a situation, they run right
around to the Legislature with a bill to prevent
such a thing's happening again. In this way, as
it has been often said, hard cases produce bad
laws. The rule adopted not only applies to that
case, but affects everybody, and probably further
undermines the natural and proper construction
of society. In this way the general is sacrificed
to the particular. Some good is done, and more
harm. The rule is ruined in fitting it to the ex-
ception.

It is due to the final result of this proceeding
that the criticism has been made that the United
States presents not an edifying construction, but a
destruction, of society.

This breaking up of the family and the home,
resulting from the annihilation of husbands and
fathers, is sententiously spoken of by those who
admire it as "Western individualism." But an-
other view taken of the situation is: "We are
not a nation; we are a rabble." If we are not,
we certainly will become so under the laws re-
cently passed affecting family life.

To prevent fathers from being put in jail for
innocently transgressing the law, it is suggested
that they keep about them always a list of the

FATHER AND CHILD 263

dates of the births of their children, and consult
it day by day in connection with the following
enactments. What may be lawful to-morrow,
your child having passed a certain birthday, may
be unlawful to-day. One cannot be too careful
when fines and jail sentences hang over him. For
the benefit, therefore, of all parents who wish to
keep out of trouble, the following schedule of the
ages of their children is prepared, showing when
acts are and are not lawful.

Children under twelve must not be given any
toy gun, pistol, rifle, or other toy firearm, etc.
(Section 3828 C.)

Children under fourteen years of age must not
be sold, apprenticed, let, or hired out, or other-
wise disposed of to any person for the vocation
of rope or wire walking, begging or peddling, or
as a gymnast, contortionist, rider, or acrobat, or
for any obscene, indecent, or immoral purpose,
exhibition, or practice, Or for any business, exhibi-
tion, or vocation injurious to the health or morals,
or dangerous <to the life or limb, and other prohi-
bitions too numerous to mention. (Acts 1895-6,
p. 701.)

Failure to provide for children of this age by
the parents or guardians, if of sufficient financial
ability, renders them liable to be put in jail. (Acts
1910, p. 570.)

Children under sixteen must not be given any
cigarettes or tobacco, nor a pistol, dirk, or bowie-
knife. (Sec. 3828 B.)

264 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

These children may be whipped by order of the
Court. (Acts 1897-8, p. 859.)

Children under seventeen must not be subjected
to vicious or immoral influences. Knowingly to
permit them to be guilty of vicious or immoral
conduct, or sending them into improper places,
such as wine shops, etc., is illegal, and the act
punishable. (Acts 1910, p. 570.)

Children of this age have, however, special
privileges and immunities allowed them as to com-
mitting one crime each. (Acts 1910, 434.)

Children under eighteen, being vagrant, dis-
orderly, or incorrigible, or charged with crime,
may be taken from the father by the Prison Asso-
ciation. (Section 4173 D.)

How much simpler a rule of law it would be to
declare that all children should be placed under
the care, control, and management of their
fathers, or, in case of his death or absence, in
that of their mothers. Other exceptional cases
could, of course, be provided for.

Does all this particularity of law tend to in-
crease the regard for law, or rather do not all
these divisions and minute differences, which no
one can remember, tend to dull the regard for
all law? Our legal system is in greater danger
from breaking down by its own weight and cum-
bersomeness than from any other cause. And it
is a serious danger which confronts us. How is
any one to obey the law, if it be so voluminous that

FATHER AND CHILD 265

he cannot know it, or so complicated that he can-
not remember it?

This line of legislation must disgust most
fathers. If Virginia have any longer any inde-
pendence of thought, these statutes can be care-
fully examined, and the policy of State interfer-
ence established by them reversed. There would
then be at least one State in the Union where a
man was the real father of his own children,
and enjoyed full parental authority. The State
should be made in general to keep outside of
the family circle, to keep outside the front door,
and let every father within the peace of the
Commonwealth, high or low, have at least one
place, his home, where his influence is supreme.

It is no answer to the criticisms here made of
this novel system to say that these laws are only
a terror to the wicked, that good husbands and
good fathers have nothing to fear from them.
But they have. The effect of these laws is to
diminish their authority. Applied to the person
of the wrong-doing husband or father, they be-
come precedents showing how low the power and
the influence of the heads of all families have
fallen. Then, when the unoffending husband or
father seeks to control in a perfectly proper case
the affairs of his household, he finds that his hand
is paralyzed by these laws. Then come discord,
discussion, disorder, which may ruin his life and
happiness, together with that of his whole house.

266 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

The question is often asked: What would you
do in the case of children who are in the care of
unworthy parents? The drunken father and the
dissolute mother are the favorite types for a test
case. The question is not without its difficulties;
but it can, we believe, be answered in a different
manner from the methods here brought under
review for criticism.

"Children are an heritage of the Lord," we are
told in the Bible. The same rule laid down in
connection with husband and wife might easily
be extended to their offispring, — "What God hath
joined together, let not man put asunder." If
it had not been in accordance with the divine will
that those parents should have had the children,
they would not have had them. If it be in har-
mony with the divine will that the children no
longer be under the influence or control of their
parents, if Earth afford no solution of the prob-
lem, Heaven may. The father and the mother
are answerable to a more exalted tribunal than
Earth affords for what they do to their children,
— "Whosoever shall offend one of these little
ones that believes in me, it is better for him that a
millstone were hanged about his neck, and he
were cast into the sea." The father and mother are
as much immortal spirits as their children, and
how shall man determine what were the objects,
or presume to interfere with the plans, of the
Creator in giving to those parents the children
which were born to them. It may have been to

FATHER AND CHILD 267

lead the parents back into the paths of virtue. The
Bible nowhere subordinates parents to children,
and we are violating its injunctions when we do
so.

Believing that these are the proper views to
hold of the relation of parent and child, it follows
that the legal rules and principles which should
stand as established for all cases, should be in
harmony with these principles, and should not be
broken and twisted to fit the particular cases of
apparent or real hardship which sometimes arise
under them. More harm would be done society by
subverting a good rule than by suffering a certain
amount of mischief due to some cases of hardship
arising under it. The millennium would have ar-
rived if some did not always have to suffer for
the rest. The soldier gives up his life on the field
of battle that his country may be protected. So
these salutary rules of proper domestic control
and discipline, which are necessary for the great
body of society, should not be reversed, and
formulated in a manner which covers the excep-
tion but injures the system. The conclusion from
this would be that even the unworthy parents have
rights which the State should recognize and pro-
tect.

We hear a great deal of abuse of fathers for
the neglect of their children, but this may very
reasonably be considered one of the bad effects of
the very system now criticised. Just in propor-
tion as the State interferes, just in that same

268 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

proportion is the father taught that it is not his
business, but the State's, to take care of the chil-
dren. It is logical to hold either that it is our
business, or it not our business, to attend to any
particular thing. If it be the business of some-
body else, then we leave it, and go our way.
Having interfered, and thus unsettled the minds
of people as to whose business it is, the State,
finding that some fathers neglect their children,
pass these severe laws, degrading to all fathers,
in order to make these few delinquents attend to
their duties, and does this in a way which also
prejudices the fathers in regard to the other
parent, lessening his authority as to 'his wife as
well as to the children. To the situation thus
produced it then offers as a remedy the hauling
the father and husband into court and the flinging
him into jail for not discharging duties which,
under a more sensible system, he might very
willingly have performed.

The same effect is produced as between the hus-
band and wife when the wife asserts that her
rights are superior to her husband's in regard to
the children.

It may be objected that the word love has
hardly been mentioned in this book, — the love of
the husband for his wife, and from the wife to
the husband, the love of the father to his child,
and the child to its father, — and that this love
exists, and may be relied upon to smooth over
and render practicable the system which is here

FATHER AND CHILD 269

set forth in its unadorned and severest legal form.
The reply would properly be made to this criti-
cism that this work is in answer to a political
movement involving law, not sentiment. There
is no desire nor intention to diminish the love
which should bind together, by the strongest and
tenderest ties, members of the same family. The
contention here maintained is that this very senti-
ment is endangered by the present rules, and may
be ruined forever by an extension of them; that
love does not grow out of disorder; that a sys-
tem which degrades the husband and the father
does not tend to make him more beloved by his
wife and children, nor does it increase the love he
would bear toward them; that the dignity of
human life is diminished by this system; that a
married woman herself becomes a more import-
ant and dignified person when she is the wife of
a man whose position is dignified by the laws of
society than when she is the wife of a person
treated by them as an object of distrust. So with
the children. Without a head treated with re-
spect by the State, and by the members of it,
the family itself becomes contemptible. In such
a household love will not flourish.

We believe that the Creator of the world knew
how family life ought to be conducted, and that
peace, happiness, and love will be found in regu-
lating these matters in accordance with the rules
laid down in the Bible.

Conclusion

Conclusion

CHAPTER I

Not so many years ago we were introduced
to the New Woman. The character, duties, posi-
tion, and functions of woman as they have been
construed, accepted, and acted upon since the dawn
of history, were suddenly found by her to have
been all wrong. Woman was now to be regen-
erated, to be given her proper position in the
economy of the universe. A new light had
dawned upon the earth, and all creation was to
be made better and happier by this so-called
emancipation and elevation of women.

A score or so of years have passed since then,
and the New Woman has now become, we might
say, a middle-aged woman. We know her bet-
ter than we did when we first made her acquaint-
ance. During these years the aims and ideals
which underlay that movement have been made
manifest by what has transpired since the agita-
tion began. We have seen men's places in the
business world taken by women; divorces multi-
plied, and still increasing, — most of them brought
by -women against their husbands; household
duties neglected; the care and the training of the

273

274 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

children slighted; the children growing up unruly,
ill-mannered, disrespectful; the parents largely
subordinated to their children; prolonged ab-
sences of wives in the summer; husbands put in
jail on preposterous grounds; then put under rules
which tend to destroy utterly their influence and
their authority in their families; disorder and
violence unheard of before in the home, and the
family hearth often stained with the blood of the
wretched members by whom and for whom death
was preferred to the domestic anarchy in which
they were living.

But these things were not enough. Upon the
shoulders of the men already staggering under
the weight of Ossa, Pelion is now to be piled. The
New Woman comes before us as the Suffragette.
But as that word has already acquired a deserv-
edly odious signification the word "Suffragist,"
or "Equal Rights," or some other such subter-
fuge or substitution is put forward in place of
the primary word to describe her.

The Suffragette, then, not satisfied with being
a woman, asks or demands as a right to be made
a man. She demands the political power of a
man. Why? Is it in order to discharge better
her duties as a woman? She is a woman, not a
man. There is nothing in the present construc-
tion of society which hinders her from being the
most glorious and blessed, the most illustrious,
admired, and beloved of women. She was cre-
ated as an helpmeet for man, not as another

CONCLUSION 275

kind of man; and no one thinks any the less of
her for being what she is, so long as she does
not try to be something else. It is impossible to
make her anything different from what she was
born. But, although no one can make women men,
society can so alter the relations between the
sexes as to ruin their harmony. What the Suf-
fragettes are now asking men to do threatens to
accomplish this.

Is any one so simple as to believe that the
Suffragette is demanding the right to vote for the
benefit of the men? Is it not perfectly clear that
the movement is a thoroughly hostile one to men?
If so, why do men seem not to appreciate the
far-reaching consequences to them? Do men now
get too much satisfaction from their relations
with women, and consequently would not be the
losers if they were to receive less? Is it not ap-
parent that if women had the right to vote, they
would claim the right to hold office, to sit in the
Legislature, to make laws? And is there a man
so stupid as to believe that if women, — who are
in the majority in the eastern part of this country,
— had the power to control legislation he would
long have a right left on earth? From what
has already been done at their instigation can he
imagine that he would be benefited by what
might yet be done? As a man, now, with the
record of the past few years before you, do you
believe that if women had the right to vote, your
wife, with her head full of political ideas or am-

276 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

bitions, would be any more disposed to attend to
her household duties than she is now?

These duties are of the very highest import-
ance, since the comfort, happiness, and general
well-being of the family are largely dependent
upon them. Somebody must attend to them.
Who is it going to be? Would the children be
any better brought up? They need an endless
amount of care and training. Who is going to
give it to them? Would you, — having been
stripped of all political power, as compared with
that possessed by your wife and your daughter, —
would you be any more the object of their care
and attention than you now are? Would your
life be any happier with more burdens and new
responsibilities thrown upon you, accompanied
with less care and attention? Would your life
be happier with the jail staring you in the face
if you broke a lot of new laws, — all aimed at
you, — enacted by women? Or, being unmarried,
would you prefer that your sweetheart should go
into politics? Do you think it would make her
a better woman or a better wife for you?

Such blandishments as the Suffragettes now
make use of in soliciting the aid of men to further
their schemes are on a par with the caresses
Delilah bestowed upon her lover, to induce him
to tell her the source of his strength, in order
that she might betray and destroy him. The Suf-
fragette is no friend of mankind; but there are
many of her sex who still are. For these we have

CONCLUSION 277

the love and the admiration which naturally arise
in the heart of man for a sweet and lovely woman.
Such women are now all the more to be admired
and cherished as allies who decline to be led away
from their rightful allegiance by othei^-women
who have raised a false issue between their sex
and ourselves, to whom they owe much higher
duties than they could ever owe to these other
women. The duties we are here discussing grow
out of the family relationships. What duties do
women, as such, owe to other women whom they
do not even know, in comparison with the duties
they owe to their husbands and their children?

Does any thoughtful man really believe that
the general political conditions in the State and
country would be improved by this addition to the
list of voters? The trouble is that we already
have too many voters, not too few. What we
need, and need badly enough, is a better quality of
voters, not a greater quantity. It has been largely
due to the disorder which has been brought into
public affairs by the presence of the large num-
ber of undesirable voters we now have that our
institutions and the administration of public af-
fairs have been so severely criticised. Politics
in general has been presented as hopelessly bad.
Both parties abuse each other. This everlasting
criticism, much of which is well founded, has had
the bad effect, however, of weakening the gov-
ernment.

This government, however, such as it is, is a

278 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

man's government. The Suffragettes take ad-
vantage of this criticism, and allege that if they
took charge everything would be perfect; bad gov-
ernment would become good government, and so
on. But it is not good government which they
want. It is political power. They have good
government in England, but there the Suffragettes
are worse than they are with us; at least, worse
than they have been so far, for they are just be-
ginning with us. The Suffragettes therefore pro-
pose doubling the number of voters as a remedy
for all the ills with which we are afflicted. Con-
fusion would then, of course, be worse con-
founded. The elements of disorder understand
perfectly the opportunity which would be thus
presented, and so all these elements strongly ad-
vocate female suffrage. They do it because they
know that such an addition would give a greater
number of votes to the women of the classes they
are in sympathy with, than to the upper, con-
servative, class. The Suffragettes belong, as a
rule, to the upper class, their social position alone
giving them the attention and consideration they
receive. No one would have listened to the
proposition had it emanated from the house-serv-
ants. But these same house-servants would come
in as voters under it, and so, many of the lower
classes line themselves up with the aristocratic
Mistress Soandso and the well-known Miss Some-
bodyelse in the furtherance of a scheme which,
in its ultimate effect, would pull down the whole

CONCLUSION 279

social and political structure of the State. We
see here the blind leading the blind. The orig-
inal Suffragettes might have their eyes opened
when they found the State finally in the hands
of the proletariat forces; and the men belonging
to the political parties which preach disorder,
would have theirs opened when they found them-
selves in jail under laws enacted by their wives.

No amount of argument on the part of the
Suffragettes will alter these facts, — that society as
a whole is made up of family groups; that these
groups are composed of father and mother and
children, and that the natural head of such a
group is the father. The customs and the laws
of society should be in harmony with these facts.
Nothing but disorder can possibly result from
legislating in contravention to them.

A woman can never be properly the head of
the house. If she wrest the authority from the
husband it is but an act of violence, and she be-
comes a mere usurper. Her husband and chil-
dren can but regard her as such. The proper and
legitimate sovereign is her husband. Every right-
thinking person will know this, whether she does
or not. Her husbartd may be deposed but he
has, nevertheless, by divine right the title to the
family crown.

Men as individuals need the aid of some con-
certed action of men in the campaign which is
now going on. The Suffragettes are a highly
organized militant band. The men are unorgan-

28o SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

ized, so far as opposition to this movement is con-
cerned. One by one, like sentries surrounding a
sleeping army, men are picked off in the dark.
In the seclusion of home, at the fireside, at table,
and in bed, a lone and unsupported man may be
conquered by a fury calling herself a Suffragette.
He sometimes, poor soul ! surrenders at discretion
— anything for peace in the family. The standards
of society have been so shaken, the attitude of the
stage, of the moving-pictures, of novels, of the
newspapers, of the magazines, of thoughtless men
who make a joke of the way wives rule, unnerve
the poor creature. In a moment of weakness, with
no definite guide to go by, ignorant of what have
been and still should be his rights, with no or-
ganization supporting him, with no carefully
thought-out arguments 'on hand to oppose to the
fervent tirades of his wife, with only his own in-
nate opposition to it in answer to her campaign
literature, he is led, — a veritable sheep fit for the
slaughter, — openly to declare himself in favor
of woman's suffrage.

Can a more deplorable spectacle of human
weakness be found? He should have the laws,
the immutable laws of the State, on his side in
this difficult and abnormal kind of contest. In-
deed, there should be no contest. The fixed rules
of society should define the position of both, and
do so with justice to both, in accordance with
the fundamental laws of our own natures.

Under the statutes already enacted at the in-

CONCLUSION 281

stigation of these agitators, or of those in sym-
pathy with their views, husbands and fathers can
now be flung into prison or sent in chains to
work the public roads. These women in demand-
ing the right to vote have not half declared what
is in their minds. Voting alone is not enough.
They want to hold office, enact and administer
law, and wield the general powers of govern-
ment. Severely as husbands and fathers are now
dealt with, they have by no means reached the
limit of the afflictions which could be put upon
them. Why could not these newly defined of-
fenses, and all sorts of other acts which might be
legally declared to be offenses, be much more
severely punished? The penitentiary has already
been suggested as suitable; why not the electric
chair? What would be the chance for a fair trial
on its merits of a case brought against a hus-
band or father before a virago Judge with a
termagant Commonwealth's Attorney as prose-
cutor, and with a lot of Suffragettes in the jury-
box? The possibility of all this is involved in
"Votes for Women." The women you would have
to deal with would not be the ones you admire
and love. No; these would be at their homes
attending to their womanly duties. You would
have to deal with the leaders of the suffragette
movement; or, worse still, with other even more
violent and dangerous characters who may have
supplanted them in this movement to turn the
world upside down.

282 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

To believe that the demands of the Suffragettes
are right is to believe that the race from which
we are sprung has been wrong throughout its
history. There is nothing new about women.
There is nothing new about children. These two
classes have existed for thousands of years. Up
to a few days ago the world was in peace and
quietness on this subject. No question was raised
suggesting that our race had not properly inter-
preted the mutual rights and obligations flowing
from the relations existing in the family circle.
Is it not, therefore, possible that this whole dis-
turbance is a made-up affair; that we are hav-
ing a bad dream, or rather a dreadful nightmare,
over nothing, and that if we would awake, re-
cover full consciousness, look facts again in the
face, and exercise our sober reason, we would
see that the only sensible thing to do is to go
back to where we were before the disturbance
began? Upon the return of a clear sky we will
see that the ship, driven by a sudden squall, has
been taken out of its course, and is heading for
breakers which threaten destruction.

We are evidently passing through a craze.
France went through the Mississippi Bubble craze,
the Netherlands went through the Tulip craze,
England jyent through the South Sea Bubble craze,
and the United States of America is ahead of
the world in its extravagances in connection with
the Women and Children craze. That this craze
exists beyond our borders, and affects other coun-

CONCLUSION 283

tries, does not prevent it from being a craze.
The whole of Christendom has before this been
affected by crazes; for example, the Crusades; the
belief in the Northwest Passage, and Prester
John.

The statutes which have been passed on this
subject deserve to be put in a Museum of Legal
Curiosities, and to be given a conspicuous posi-
tion in the section devoted to Legislative Attempts
to Subordinate Men to Women and Children.

CHAPTER II

In the past women were accorded privileges.
These privileges were many and valuable. Un-
fortunately for mankind, agitators set to work
to assert the so-called rights of women. As is
often the case when this kind of attack is made,
there is no well-organized resistance, and the
movement gains a headway that it does not de-
serve. These rights, — or more properly speak-
ing, these unreasonable demands, — were in many
cases accorded, but there has been manifested no
disposition on the part of the women voluntarily
to surrender any of their former privileges. They
are, therefore, at present in the position of de-
manding more than they are entitled to, — that is,
both rights and privileges. They are not en-
titled to both, and the result of the contest is
gradually the working out of a substitution of
one of these things for the other. The more
they demand rights, the more they will lose priv-
ileges. There is no real gain for women in this,
and, worse than that, there is no gain on the
part of the world by this system. We are there-
fore opposed to all these so-called rights, while
favoring all of the former privileges, surrounded
as they were by the sweet odors of courtesy,
chivalry, romance, poetry, and love.

284

CONCLUSION 285

What do women gain in demanding the right
to vote, and actually acquiring the right to
stand up in a street car; in claiming the right to
smoke, and thereby losing the right to have men
take off their hats in a woman's presence; in
claiming an equality with men in all matters, and
acquiring thereby the obligation to make a living
for themselves, and so on? So long as they be
women, they are entitled to women's privileges,
but if, not satisfied with these, they demand men's
rights, it must inevitably be at the cost of their
former privileges.

For women we have respect, admiration, and
love. They compose half of the race, and nat-
urally possess its softer and more amiable char-
acteristics. We would preserve all the sweetness
which belongs to womanhood, as it has existed
with us through ages past, and the men should
not permit a policy to expand, nor continue to
exist, which tends to make second-class men out
of what may be glorious women.

It is a fact that cannot be successfully denied
that women from the North and the West find
in the South a delicate attention and regard paid
them which exceeds that which generally pre-
vails in their own sections of the country. What
is the cause of this? It is because the former rules
regulating the relations of men and women, and
husbands and wives, have remained longer un-
changed in the South than in any other part of
the country. The delicious aroma of courtesy and

286 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

of privilege still lingers in our midst. We desire to
preserve and strengthen this. It cannot long sur-
vive the line of modern legislation which has been
reviewed in these pages. These statutes are
enough to chill it and, finally, to blast it forever.
They do not represent Virginia law, custom,
thought, nor usage. They are foreign importa-
tions, utterly at variance with our institutions ; and
it is firmly believed that they will work untold evil
to both men and women, and to the social and
domestic life of our State. What we ought to do
is to proceed to repeal these laws one after the
other, and then firmly refuse to open the subject
again.

CHAPTER III

A fair sample of the suffragette argument is pre-
sented in a speech made by one of their orators in
Norfolk on December 6, 1911. It was reported
in the Landmark in part as follows:

"The mixed element in our politics is too
strong. We should strengthen it with good ma-
terial, he stated. In conclusion, he said: 'The
vote is a responsibility the women should shoulder
whether they want it or not. It is not a question
of their wishes in the matter, but a question of
the debt they owe to their nation. The men have
made a mess of it, and now it is up to the women
to clean it up. If we can get the women to take
their share of the burden, this condition will be
changed and our politics will be purified.' '

What an argument to make to the men of a
State which, in its short history, has presented to
an admiring world as brilliant a galaxy of states-
men, jurists and soldiers as any country has ever
produced and which is probably equalled only by
Attica ! What a speech to make to Virginians,
who are a branch of the great Anglo-Saxon race
which for a thousand years has 'held a command-
ing place among the races of the earth, and which
to-day leads the thought and the action of the
world! From small beginnings, and in a com-

287

288 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

paratively short time, it has surpassed in its
achievements the Slav, the Oriental, and the
Latin. Its beneficent rule is exercised in nearly
every part of the known world. It rules the
United Kingdom of Great Britain, the south of
Africa, and Egypt; it rules Australia, and mil-
lions of Asiatics in India ; it rules nearly the whole
continent of North America, and its power is felt
in the court of every nation upon the earth.

Yet we are urged to break with the traditions
and the experience of the past by which the power
of this race has been established upon the earth,
because "the men have made a mess of it," and
adopt, instead of the rules by which the great
body of our race has always been governed, the
novel theories of a few, raw, Western American
States, which have yet to show to the world that
their theories, — in contradiction to the methods
which have been followed by the whole human
race of every clime and kindred throughout the
entire historic period, — have in them a single
spark of merit.

It is a serious question whether in the rivalry
for ascendency and power among the great races
of the earth upon the broad stage of the world
itself we will be able to maintain ourselves when
brought into a life and death struggle with the
forces of other nations which have adhered to
the domestic construction which has prevailed
with them since the dawn of their history. We
are rapidly ruining the home. If we complete its

CONCLUSION 289

ruin, whence will come the men on whom we are
to rely for maintaining the ascendency of the
race? We are shaking the foundation stones of
society. If this be continued, the whole edifice
may finally collapse.

One of the favorite arguments of the Suffra-
gettes is, "It's coming." As "It," — that is this
disaster, — can only come by the men permitting it,
all that is necessary to obliterate utterly that
argument is for the men to say "No." Consider-
ing the seriousness of the issues involved, even
the worst henpecked husbands should rise to the
height of saying "No" in this case. The "No"
should be so emphatic that it would admit of no
concession nor compromise whatever. Even the
tip of the nose of the camel should not be al-
lowed to be put under the tent which is fastened
down around the boundary line of the State of
Virginia.

It is an open question what use the women
would make of this right, even if it were given
them. Sir Walter Scott, while paying them the
compliment of saying that when pain and anguish
wring the brow they (the women) are minister-
ing angels, further said that in their hours of
ease they were "uncertain, coy, and hard to please,
and variable as the shade by the light quivering
aspen made." With all the zeal of a new cause,
the Suffragettes are now clamoring for the right
to vote. After having it given to them, who
would be much surprised to hear that they did

29o SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

not really want it, that they just wanted to see
if they could get it? But the mischief would
have been done. The Suffragettes, who are now
ladies, would be replaced by others. The flood-
gates would be opened, and there would be thous-
ands who would be only too glad to take ad-
vantage of it.

There is no good reason why all the persons
in a community should be called upon to perform
all kinds of different functions. There are some
other things as important as politics, but no one
thinks the world would be better by having every-
body in the Army, or in the Navy, or in the
Church, or all doctors, or lawyers, or carpenters,
or bricklayers. It is the experience of the world
that things are better done when the doer does
not have his time and attention distracted by too
many different things. A Jack of all trades is
good at none. From time immemorial the politi-
cal functions of the State have been within the
province of man's activities, duties, and responsi-
bilities, and the history of the world shows that
it is difficult enough to keep going smoothly that
vast complicated machine called government. In-
experienced, raw hands are not needed here,
especially when to bring them in would withdraw
them from other fields peculiarly their own,
which, if not equally conspicuous, are equally im-
portant for the well-being of mankind.

During a Suffragette meeting recently held in
a Virginia city one of the leaders of the move-

CONCLUSION 291

ment gave the following as the reasons why
women should 'have the right to vote :

i
"That she may feed her family properly and

secure pure food laws.

"That she may clothe her family properly.

"That she may house her family under proper
health conditions.

"That she may procure a copious and cleanly
water supply.

"That she may see to clean streets and proper
disposal of garbage.

"That she may get the best possible education
for her children.

"That she may safeguard children's morals in
the streets, at moving-picture shows, in schools,
and in all public institutions.

"That she may gain decent and honorable
working conditions for women, men, and chil-
dren.

"That she may abolish the white slave trade.

"That she may keep open the juvenile courts.

"That she may mitigate the legal discrimina-
tion against women, and give women equal guar-
dianship over their children.

"That she may be able to carry out ably and
efficiently those duties which naturally and his-
torically belong to women as the great caretakers
of the world."

The first seven of these high-sounding reasons
might be more briefly stated as simply proposing

292 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

that wives should supersede their husbands in at-
tending to the vital affairs of life. The next two
should commend themselves as much to men as
to women; and there is no reason why women
should vote to accomplish them. The last two
propositions have in view the still further reduc-
tion of the powers and rights of husbands and
fathers. The phrase "mitigate the legal discrim-
ination against women" might be paraphrased as
taking away every particular right which a man
has. "Giving women equal guardianship over
her children" means taking away the remaining
vestige of headship in the family now possessed
by the father.

On the whole, these reasons are no reasons at
all, but merely the expression of a desire on the
part of women to take the places which now be-
long to men.

Another favorite argument put forth by the
Suffragettes is that owning property they are
taxed without being represented, and they use
the revolutionary slogan: "Taxation Without-
Representation is Tyranny." This argument
would do very well but for the fact that it is
wholly destitute of merit. The Colonies were
taxed as such, without representation in the
British Parliament. One rule applied to the Col-
onies, and another rule to England. But here
no woman is taxed as a woman by a rule differ-
ent from that which applies to men. No regard
whatever is paid as to who owns the property,

CONCLUSION 293

but all property is taxed at rates which apply to
men and women alike, the women faring as well
as the men, and being fully represented by their
fathers, brothers, husbands, sons, grandsons,
uncles, nephews and cousins, who enact the laws
which apply equally to all.

We should even remain unmoved by the sight
of maps showing in angelic whiteness those
States which have yielded to women's demands,
while other States, which still adhere to common
sense, are depicted in the darkest black that the
printer's art can furnish. We should oppose to
the claims of mother and child the superior claims
of father and child; to the demands of wives
the equally just demands of husbands; to the
rights of women the equally sacred rights of men.

"Shall we, the women," argued one of the
leaders of this movement, at a meeting of the
National American Woman's Suffrage Associa-
tion, held in the city of Philadelphia on No-
vember 24, 1912, "leave the laws solely in the
hands of the men who, after the day's work,
come home tired and unfit to consider the serious-
ness of life?"

That question, asked in all seriousness, accord-
ing to the newspaper reports of the proceedings
of that august assemblage, deserves an answer;
but the more one considers the question, the more
he will see that it answers itself. Whether the
question displays more of ignorance, pride, or
prejudice, it would be much more difficult to de-

294 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

cide. The ignorance displayed, if real, is appal-
ling. Men do not, and never have, passed laws
privately in their homes at night after the fatigue
of the work of the day. Laws, in each State, are
passed by representatives duly chosen by the
people, who are paid to leave their ordinary oc-
cupations in order to go to the capitol, where,
in a lawful assembly, held at the most conven-
ient hours of the day or night, and with nothing
else on their hands to attend to, after due delib-
eration they adopt such rules as they may think
best for the public welfare. The laws thus passed
in one branch of the Legislature are reviewed by
the other, and, if adopted by both, still need the
approval of the governor before they can be put
into force. Everybody in this country, with the
possible exception of the learned women at that
convention, who propose to teach the world how
its affairs should be conducted, knows all this,
which is the mere A. B. C. of our governmental
construction; yet one of their leaders asks such a
question as that.

The pride displayed in the question is equal
to the ignorance; and there is no room to doubt
the genuineness of the feeling. The tired men
are "unfit to consider the seriousness of life."
It is therefore only their wives or other female
members of their families who are worthy and
competent to discharge such lofty functions.

The prejudice displayed is equal to the igno-
rance and the pride. The men "after the day's

CONCLUSION 295

work come home tired," and so are unfit to rule
the State. What made these men so tired ex-
cept the labor they underwent for the support of
their families? Having labored all day for the
wife and the children at home, the sympathy and
the reward awaiting the husband and father when
he returns in the evening to his fireside is the
judgment of his wife that, being fatigued, he is
"unfit to consider the seriousness of life."

The whole system being worked out by these
Suffragettes is admirable, and most beautiful to
contemplate. The husband must support his fam-
ily. If he does not do so, he is to be put in jail
for non-support. Being thus forced to work, he
becomes tired. Being tired, he is unfit to con-
sider the seriousness of life, >and so is to be
dethroned and the reins of government are to
be taken from him, and transferred to his wife.
We guarantee that this programme, fully worked
out, will effectually cure him of any further or
latent inability he may have been guilty of in con-
sidering the seriousness of life !

Let men once open wide this door to the evils
which can come upon them, and they may never
be able to shut it. They should look with dis-
trust upon other men, who, having political as-
pirations, and noting the indifference with which
so many men regard this movement and the zeal
of its clamorous exponents, take sides with what
they think may be a rising power. They should
also look with distrust upon political organiza-

296 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

tions that, lacking enough of merit to commend
them to the general public, are forced to call in the
aid of anybody and everybody to strengthen the
particular, but narrow, basis on which they are
founded. No well-informed man, free to exercise
his judgment, and having no axe to grind, is in
favor of a movement which is clearly hostile to
him. When a man comes out and announces that
he is in favor of this movement, it is not Woman
Suffrage that he needs, it is help.

In an article which appeared in the Virginian-
Pilot of Norfolk, on December 22, 1912, entitled
"Why Women Are Not Marrying," after saying
that many did not do so from choice, the follow-
ing edifying statement of what has been accom-
plished by the Woman's Movement is given us by
the writer, a woman:

"Apart from their ability to stand alone and
make their own acknowledged positions in the
professional, business, and social world, there is
another reason and the most significant of all
reasons why modern women of education, train-
ing, and culture are not eager to marry. It is
because the men are not modern, because the men
are out of date. They have, in truth, been asleep
for two or three generations, and whilst they have
been resting placidly in their grooves, hedged in
by their traditions and prejudices, their stereo-
typed views and worn-out codes, lo ! things have
been happening of which they have been entirely
unaware.

CONCLUSION 297

"The women have stolen a march on them in
initiative, executive, alertness, dash, courage, en-
thusiasm, perception, vision. And, owing to this
prolonged slumber, the men have been deprived
of the advantage of following the phases of this
change in women, observation of which would
have helped them to readjust themselves gradu-
ally, unconsciously almost, without any serious dis-
turbance to themselves. As it is, they awake sud-
denly expecting to find the same old relationships
of mastery and subjection, the same old separate
standards of conduct, and the same old values and
currencies, and are confronted instead with the
astounding and annoying fact that women have re-
belled against the old order and have developed
minds, wishes, intentions, aims, ideals, and opin-
ions of their own, together with a rigid determina-
tion to take their place in the world on equal
terms with men.

"Other surprises, too, await them. They find
that they have lost some of the glamour that
was once theirs, some of the hero-worship, some
of the unquestioning belief in their innate su-
periority, ever accepted as an unalterable law of
nature.

"Doubts appear to have arisen about their
strength of character, formerly always taken for
granted. They are conscious of uncomfortable
criticism and analysis where in the past there was
always dumb acceptance and endorsement. And
they look in vain for those propitiatory offerings

298 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

hitherto unfailingly brought to their shrine by sub-
servient women-folk, both young and old.

"Of course, they were furious at the change.
They would not be worth anything if they did not
show that amount of spirit, and certainly women
have not the right to be angry and bitter with
them since they themselves are to blame for hav-
ing accepted for so long the position of servility
and submission, and, moreover, inculcated the
doctrine in the hearts of their daughters, genera-
tion after generation. In asking justice for them-
selves they would, indeed, be unfair if they for-
got to concede it to them.

"But when the men have calmed down they
will see the necessity of readjusting themselves to
altered conditions, for it is unthinkable that they
will be content to remain cut off from the love
and companionship of bright and gallant women
who, however attracted by them personally, are
resolutely set against choosing husbands who are
out of tune in the harmony of their progress and
out of perspective in the changing picture of life."

Although the article is under the title "Why
Women Are not Marrying," it concludes thus with
the oft-heard feminine advice and urging of men
to marry:

"Let us hope that the men will bring all their
inherent splendid qualities of nature and character
up to date without delay and tempt once more into
the paths of marriage that ever-increasing class of
able and fine-hearted women, whose power of pas-

CONCLUSION 299

sionate loving and tender cherishing is none the
less real because their outlook has been widened
by knowledge and experience."

This, then, is the reward men get for the con-
cessions they have granted to the women, — to be
considered out of date, and all wrong generally.
This presentation of their view of the case is
highly effective, and affords good argument why
men should not further pursue the course they
have pursued in dealing with this matter. The
more the women talk, show their hand, and de-
clare what is in their hearts and minds about
this matter, the more apparent it becomes that
the sooner the men put a stop to the movement
the better.

Marriage is an institution not established
merely to sanctify the union of persons con-
sumed by la grande passion, such as Romeo and
Juliet, but to authorize and regulate, in a wise
and reasonable manner, relations which should
naturally and properly exist between all men and
women, the founders of family groups. The
laws on this subject should be such that the re-
lation between the consorts after they enter mar-
riage should conduce to their mutual advantage,
not only for the sake of the individuals who
compose the married couples but for the sake of
society. These couples should present a picture
of harmonious and satisfactory existence, so that
the institution will be kept alive by others who
will seek for themselves the advantages which they

300 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

would have good reason to believe the relation
would naturally bring to them, — to the husband
the companionship, comfort, and pleasure he may
experience in his wife's society; to the wife, the
companionship, care, and protection she should
receive from her husband, who should shield and
protect her from the outside world.

How long does any reasonable person believe
that a system such as we are rapidly drifting into
can survive? Wives are represented as objects
of terror to their husbands, and are made the
threadbare subject of jokes on the stage, in the
papers, and in the various other ways by which
the public receives its strongest impressions.
These jests might have seemed funny at first,
before the feminist idea had attained its present
dimensions; but they are no longer so; they are
ghastly. They are doing all they can utterly to
ruin in the mind of every woman her proper duty
to her husband, and to foster in the mind of every
man the idea, "No Wedding Bells for Me."

What can the end be of such a system? The
institutions, customs, laws, habits, the very men
and women of any country, can be utterly de-
moralized and ruined, if enough people are bent
upon the accomplishment of such ends. We have
already gone too far. It is high time for the
men of the various States of this Union to con-
sider seriously the present conditions. It is not
yet too late to remedy them, but it may soon be.
We have become intoxicated with the idea of

CONCLUSION 301

political liberty and equality, and have foolishly
brought these ideas into play within the family
circle, which they are destined to ruin, if this
policy be not reversed. The husband must be
reestablished in a position of dignity and power,
and the father must be reestablished, or the deluge
will be upon us all — men, women, and children
alike.

CHAPTER IV

The ultimate reserve force in every commun-
ity is the men, not the women, of that com-
munity. Women -have many weaknesses which
it has not been within the plan of this work to
discuss. The objection to "Votes for Women"
rests on such fundamental reasons that the lesser
ones are here passed over. But there are certain
defects which, although they apply to both men
and women, seem to be peculiarly great in the
case of women. In the make-up of women's
natures there seems to be little regard for law
and order, or for the relative importance and in-
herent dignity of persons and things. Most
women have little regard for contracts. So great
an importance is attached to this subject by men
that one of the wise provisions of the Federal
Constitution provides that no State even shall pass
a law impairing the obligation of contracts. No
woman would ever have written that. They sign
the most definite and solemn written contracts and
then have no idea that that agreement is really
binding on them. Taught from their youth that a
woman's privilege is to change her mind, it is
with difficulty that they realize that contracts
really should, and must, be kept. In addition to
this they have little or no regard for the revenue

302

CONCLUSION 303

laws. They are by nature disposed to evade the
payment of taxes, and to get articles through the
custom houses without paying duty.

The idea that this is the age of "obedient par-
ents" comes from women's laxity of ideas in re-
gard to the duties which children owe to their
parents, in particular, to their father.

Their lack of appreciation of the relative dig-
nity of persons results in their encouragement of
children's calling their parents, and their parents'
friends, by their first names, and the many other
manifestations of a general lowering in the dignity
of human life and in the conduct of human af-
fairs.

Let women's ideas be fully worked out in the
political, business, and domestic world, and it
would really seem that life in such a community
would not be worth living. We pass from the
disorders which surround us in our childish rela-
tions with other immature persons into the quieter
and better regulated affairs of grown-up people.
Under woman's rule, however, it is believed that
there would be no such improvement in the con-
ditions of later life, but, indeed, that the disorders
would be of a more serious nature since the forces
at play are of greater violence.

Arguments, — some of much force, and well
worthy of serious consideration, — based on the
peculiarities, foibles, and weakness of women
have been urged by many in opposition to their
right to vote. These present what might be called

304 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

the comedy which would follow the adoption of
these ideas, or might even be called the burlesque
to which it is believed government would be there-
by reduced. The argument presented in this work
is of a different nature. It is based upon the
strength of woman. But this woman's movement
has as its tendency the development of this
strength, not in woman, the helpmeet of man, but
in woman, the opponent of man. Our theme is
the resulting tragedy, — the tragedy of love, mar-
riage, home, children and country.

These modern "progressive" ideas are surely
very fine, — to the children are given ideas of diso-
bedience, bad manners, and contempt of authority;
to the wives, progress in selfishness, indifference to
duty, and independence of their husbands. For the
husbands the progress is marked and steady; it is
toward slavery and the grave. In this child-and-
woman worship of America, while Cosette and
Marius revel, Jean Valjean miserably perishes.
Manhood, experience, and maturity are abased be-
fore weakness and immaturity.

Nor should men be in the least affected by the
argument that since women have so largely entered
into the business world they need the ballot to
"protect them." Women need no such protection
from men. The theory that wives should be pro-
tected from their husbands and children from their
fathers is the worst possible manifestation of an
utter misconception of the natural relations which
should obtain in family life; and this theory that

CONCLUSION 305

women in the world of work should be protected
from men, their natural and best protectors, is
equally false.

This was the same argument made by the fa-
natics of a generation ago, who, in the days of
reconstruction, to crown their work of devastation
in the South, placed in the hands of the emanci-
pated slave the ballot "to protect him from the
white man," his former master. Years, filled
more or less with political trouble, followed, until
about a decade ago when this act of stupendous
folly and injustice was practically nullified by Vir-
ginia, and the negro race was eliminated from the
politics of our State.

What injury has it been to the negro to be thus
disfranchised? None whatever. The negro vote
being no longer a possible menace to the peace
and good order of the State, he is looked upon
possibly with more kindness and consideration
than before. The two races occupy the same
territory in peace, the negroes receiving steadily
higher wages and living in the full enjoyment of
all their rights of person and property. They
are protected equally with their white neighbors
by the laws of the Commonwealth. So it has
always been, is now, and would continue to be,
with women. The worst thing that could happen
to women would be to have withdrawn from them
the natural protection of men, — a protection com-
ing spontaneously from the heart, and not from
laws, which would have as a natural result a

306 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

separation of interest and a chilling of sympathy
rather than any increased protection.

Viewed from the standpoint of the effect upon
the State at large, it might well be believed that
less harm would come to it from reestablishing
the negro vote than would come to it from allow*
ing women to vote. The evil in one case would
be more political. We have met that, and have
proved ourselves able to overcome it. But the
other may destroy all peace and happiness in
the home. One evil we have been able to survive.
The other we might not. When we allow women
to vote we allow, at least theoretically, negro
women to vote as well as white women. Can
any honest or sane man believe this would im-
prove the internal, external, or domestic affairs of
the great Commonwealth of Virginia? If the
ladies of the State cannot always control their
cooks and house-servants in their household
duties, do they seriously think that, if they quali-
fied themselves under the law, and became legal
voters, they could any better control them in
political matters? The white men have controlled
the negro men. Could the suffragettes control
the negro women? They might succeed in some
instances in intimidating their own husbands, but
could they control anybody else?

One of the strongest forces in the politics of
the country to-day is the temperance movement,
which has as one of its objects the elimination of
the liquor interests from all control of politics.

CONCLUSION 307

This certainly would be a desirable thing to ac-
complish. Intemperance is a curse, and the liquor
interests are a corrupting element in public affairs.
They have had entirely too much power in some
States, and deserve to be put down. But the
men who, to further the temperance movement,
are willing or anxious to add women to the list
of voters, — thinking they can count on a majority
of the feminine vote as favorable to prohibition,
- — become by their zeal in one cause blind to the
general effect of what they are proposing to do.
In spite of all that can be said against liquor, the
fact remains that most persons are not drunkards,
and that little or no evil would flow from liquor
if each drinking man restrained himself to only
a very moderate use of it.

The victims of the present license system are
few in number compared to the population as a
whole; and, although the affairs of our own State
are not all we could wish them to be, yet the
Commonwealth, except for the domestic disorder
which is steadily increasing and a few other
matters of lesser importance, is in profound peace
within itself and with the rest of the world. Its
population and resources are increasing, while the.
State debt is decreasing. Public affairs with us>
could therefore easily be in a much worse con*,
dition than they are, even with liquor, and rings,
and other evils which sometimes occur.

But these are matters which men should settle
with other men. It is shameful to have to bring

3o8 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

women into it, or to allow them to become in-
volved in such political contests, even should these
very women be anxious to do so. It is disgraceful
for men to have to resort to women to fight their
battles. If the men of the several States cannot
properly regulate the affairs of their States they
will never be well regulated.

Of all fatal errors we can imagine none worse
than this: Suppose the proposition were adopted,
the women are given the right to vote, and having
that right, join with the men of the temperance
party, and destroy the liquor business, and cast
out all liquor men from places of the least in-
fluence in State, in city, or in county affairs. What
then? One evil would have been suppressed, but
new or much greater troubles for all men would
have begun. It would be like spending a million
dollars in order to collect a debt of one dollar; or
like burning up your house in order to get rid of
a rat; or like cutting off your head in order to
stop the toothache. The remedy would be in-
finitely worse than the disease. What an act of
monumental folly it would be to adopt Woman's

. Suffrage, not on its own merits, but merely to
accomplish an ulterior object of minor impor-
tance !

/ What all the resulting evils would be each man
can try to imagine for himself, but it seems that>
among them there would surely be domestic
anarchy, loss of all power and influence in the
family on the part of husbands and fathers, more

CONCLUSION 309

severe forms of slavery for them, more divorces,
ruinous decrees for alimony, the prison, work in
chains on the public roads, neglect, despair, mur-
der, and suicide. /All these calamities can be
counted upon to appear like so many specters in
the dark when the sun of man's political power
shall have set.

Do not let the quixotic idea take possession of
you that such a course would be unselfish and
noble, and that it will be a matter of pride for
you to remember hereafter that you had aided
in the "elevation of woman." What you would
really have aided in accomplishing would be the
lowering of -men, — yourself among them. Fight
out this liquor question and every other public
question, man to man. Then, whatever the result,
the men of each State would still be able to control
its affairs, and preserve the peace and dignity of
the Commonwealth.

Authority has already declined far enough in
this country. The War of the Revolution
shattered the royal authority. The Civil War
destroyed the aristocratical power of the slave-
holders in the South, and weakened the position
of the upper classes in the North and West.
About all that is left is domestic authority. The
suffragettes seek to destroy this. From aristoc-
racy we have descended to democracy; and from
democracy we are now moving toward mobocracy.
The same line of thought which concludes that
women should vote might be relied upon finally

3io SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

to assert that a ship should be navigated accord-
ing to the views of the crew and the passengers
instead of by experienced officers, that a school
should be conducted according to the ideas of the
scholars instead of by the teachers, that a church
should be led by the congregation instead of by
the clergy, that the affairs of a family should be
decided by the children instead of by the parents,
that a court should decide according to the views
of the bystanders instead of according to the
knowledge of the judges, that an army should act
according to the votes of the privates instead of
by command of the officers, — in short, that all
real authority be abolished, and the capricious
whim of the uninformed majority should govern
in everything.

The word "Suffragette" has been used so often
in this book that it might now be well to ask,
is a Suffragette? An answer in the nature
of a description rather than of a definition might
be that a Suffragette is a woman who, if she had
been a man and one of a crew among which a
mutiny had broken out would be found among the
mutineers; or who, if she were a soldier and a
member of a regiment in which insubordination
had shown itself would be in the ranks of the
rebels; or who, if an employee in a factory, would
join in the strike; or who, if an accused man were
about to be lynched, would help to dispatch him;
or who, if she were in prison (as a good many of
them ought to be) and an attack were made upon

CONCLUSION 311

the guards, would join in attempting to kill them.

The characteristics common to the various
groups thus presented are the same as those which
belong to the women who apply to political and
domestic matters the theories which result in the
words, thoughts, and actions of Suffragettes. Let
no one be deceived as to the work of these women.
Some of them are sincere, some are deceivers,
others are deceived, many are ignorant and
thoughtless. These last know not what they do
and little appreciate the consequences and ultimate
effects of actions which they may commit with
good intentions in their hearts but in accordance
with doctrines that are not the doctrines of peace
but are those of war, and domestic war at that.
The Suffragette does not stand before the world
as an angel of peace, wreathed with the garlands
of good will, decked with the flowers of love and
happiness, and crowned with the ornament of a
meek and quiet spirit. The olive branch is not in
her hand; it is beneath her feet. And the war in
which she has enlisted, as it inevitably involves the
peace and happiness of the home, is a movement
which may entail more misery and disaster on the
human race than any of the scourges which have
yet afflicted it.

If the Suffragettes are going to wreak ven-
geance on the men of this generation for the
fancied wrongs of their sex during the period of
the world's past history it would be well for their
victims to take warning and see to it that this

3i2 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

thing does not come to pass. To do this they must
be true to themselves. To yield passively to en-
croachment after encroachment will end in their
complete undoing, and will cause them to forfeit
the esteem and the support of those faithful
women who still feel in their hearts a loyalty to
the traditions of the race, and who see in man
the natural protector and head of the family and
not a mere beast of burden.

If men abdicate, if they offer no resistance to
these attacks upon them, there will be no point of
crystallization for the conservative sentiment to
gather around. The men of this age may finally
resemble the unfortunate Louis XVI, whose in-
decisive and yielding course in the face of a rising
storm paralyzed the efforts of his adherents and
deprived them of any rallying point. At the
heart of what should have been the center of
opposition there was no heart; and the dreadful
drama moved on until the tragedy was complete.
The men of the western world are acting with the
same irresolution and timidity in the face of the
crisis which confronts them, and which threatens
to entail more lasting and more dreadful conse-
quences.

These Suffragettes have brought suit against
all men to deprive them of their birthright, and
to reduce them to a political level with women.
With a perfectly valid and overwhelming defense
to this proposition it is amazing to behold the
attitude and to observe the course pursued by

CONCLUSION 313

many men in view of this threatening danger,
which in its effects bids fair to entail more dreadful
consequences to civilization than would follow a
barbarian invasion. With an inexcusable inde-
cision many men who would face death with
courage on the battlefield against a national
enemy take advantage of the division among the
women on this revolutionary issue. While in their
hearts these men feel, — some even in their words
and writings clearly say, — that this thing is wrong,
and ought not to be, yet personally they evade the
issue and ignominiously desert their brave allies
among the women, asserting that this is, after all,
a question to be determined by the women.

On the contrary, this is a question above all
others for the men to decide and to decide
promptly and definitely. It would be surprising
how soon this matter could be settled, and rele-
gated to the past, if the men once clearly under-
stood the full meaning of the movement and as
clearly expressed themselves about it. They are
the court of last resort on this question, and if,
instead of letting the disgraceful struggle con-
tinue between the women over a subject of the
highest importance to men, they would say that
they would not permit it, that would necessarily
be the end of the matter. Of course there is no
use arguing with a Suffragette on the subject. The
men should say promptly, once and for all, that
they will not permit it.

CHAPTER V

How long since has it been that the men of
Virginia have not been able to attend to their
public affairs? What superior wisdom or ability
is to be brought in the lists by including the female
members of all the families in the State? The
few women now agitating this subject are culti-
vated persons, many are possessed of property,
and all are ambitious of distinguishing themselves.
But their views, if adopted, must be extended to
every class of society, — the rich and the poor, the
virtuous and the otherwise, the black and the
white, the ignorant, the depraved, the pauper, and
the outcast. What improvement in the standard
of the electorate, — woefully low as it still is, —
would be effected by such a change?

All these women are the mothers, the wives, the
sisters, the sweethearts, or the cousins of the men
in the State. If the men were to vote with the
women on this question it would merely result in
larger ballot-boxes being needed and in more votes
to be counted. If the men were to vote against
the women, it would mean that into the badly
demoralized domestic circle another apple of dis-
cord is to be thrown. If, with only men voting,
these drastic laws against fathers and husbands
have been passed, we venture the prophecy that
with women voting men will eventually not have

314

CONCLUSION 315

a right left worth naming. What American hus-
band is there who does not believe that he is en-
titled to be treated by his wife as well as a China-
man is by his? But he is not so treated. He
receives but a very small fraction of the defer-
ence and regard which the heathen receives.
What American father would not like to be treated
by his children with the same respect that a Mo-
hammedan receives from his? But he is far re-
moved from such treatment. In neither case
would one recognize the relationship as being the
same. The American husbands and fathers have
already placed themselves in the position where
they receive less consideration and assistance from
their wives and children than any other men who
have ever lived upon the face of the earth. The
Americans' weakness in this regard is already a
demoralizing factor in the world at large, and
their ruin will be irrevocable and complete when
in their blindness they shall have conferred equal
political powers upon the women with whom they
live. There will then not be one retreat or
stronghold left them, not one sheltering rock in
the burning desert. For the average American
husband, married to the average American wife,
if he have his property in his wife's name, his
resources depleted by life insurance, surrounded
by superficially educated but disrespectful children,
and an overdressed but ungovernable wife,
nearly bound hand and foot by the system
of laws now in force, — laws which keep the jail

316 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

ever open before him, — if he put the ballot in his
wife's hand, he will then have about the same pros-
pect for happiness as had Samson, when, shorn of
his power and with his eyes put out, he was chained
to the treadmill in the prison to grind corn for
the Philistines. For the laws which hase already
well-nigh produced this condition can be counted
upon to make it still worse should the women
ever control legislation.

There is no reason why the Legislature of each
of the States should not review this whole sub-
ject; this relation between men and women should
be put on some basis more philosophic and infinite-
ly more satisfactory to men than it now is. There
is no reason why men should continue to condemn
themselves to have so little interest in the property
of their wives and children, and to have so little
control over their own domestic affairs, or to con-
sign themselves to jail at their wives' command.
The effect of this legislation may, if not soon re-
versed, bring on the dreadful condition of a plan's
foes being they of his own household.

We should not allow ourselves to be swept
from our moorings by the bad example of others.
If every other State in the Union or even Old
England herself, should give way there is yet
no reason why Virginia should. The original
State of the Amerian Union might yet render an-
other magnificent service to the Union, and to the
whole Anglo-Saxon race, by standing firmly for
the principles which have prevailed during the

CONCLUSION 317

rise and progress of our race as a world power.
It would by so doing afford at least one strong-
hold where these principles still prevailed, and
which, by its example, might be made the base of
future operations for bringing back this race to a
more philosophic and satisfactory system of so-
cial and domestic construction.

The proposition involved in the demands of the
Suffragettes is a political question of the very
highest importance, the most serious one which
to-day confronts the American people. It is one
in the decision of which they should make no mis-
take. Political mistakes are hard to rectify and
often entail the most disastrous consequences to
millions of people and for long periods of time.
The history of the world is made up in large part
of political mistakes and the dreadful conse-
quences that resulted from them. The South
made a mistake when it seceded from the Union.
Four years of bloody warfare and the chaos of
the reconstruction followed. England made a
mistake when she persisted in enforcing in
America laws which we regarded as unjust. Eight
years of war and the loss of its most valuable
Colonies was the result. Charles I made a mis-
take when he sought to establish absolute power
in England. Civil war and the loss of his life
was the consequence. Spain made a mistake when
it decided to enforce on the inhabitants of Hol-
land its views in religious matters. One hun-
dred years of war and Spain's fall from the place

3i 8 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

of power it had occupied among the nations was
the result. Louis XVI made a mistake in not
firmly resisting the beginnings of the Revolution.
The loss of his life and a generation of war were
the consequences. Napoleon made a mistake
when he undertook the conquest of Russia. The
loss of 'his army and of his empire was the re-
sult. Hannibal made a mistake when he under-
took to conquer Rome. Years of warfare and
the ultimate destruction of his own country was
the result. So examples could be multiplied with-
out end.

Some of the youngest States in the American
Union, — themselves at most only a generation
or two old, and, therefore, lacking in experi-
ence,— have seen fit to place women on a footing
of political equality with men. There is no
need for us to be in a hurry to follow their ex-
ample. No great harm would be done if we
waited one hundred years, in order to see how
this experiment, .in contravention to the experi-
ence of the race for the past many hundred years,
will turn out. That the men in these Western
States choose to put themselves on no higher
plane, politically, than their women is no reason
why we should do the same. The levelling proc-
ess involved in this step is not in accordance
with the traditions of the South. Long before
one hundred years have run out, the men of these
Western States may be looking upon the men in
the South and East, — who have not followed

CONCLUSION 319

their example but, instead, have held to their su-
periority in all political matters, — as constituting
a much more fortunate race than themselves.
Compared to the weak and lowered condition of
the men in the Women Suffrage States, all the
men in the other States would occupy much higher
and much more dignified, and much more envi-
able positions. Why should the men of any State
throw away this advantage? What is offered
them as a compensation for thus giving away their
birthright? Nothing, — worse than nothing. They
are asked voluntarily, with no benefit whatever
which we believe would ever be realized, to give
up and lose forever a precious possession which
they own. They are asked practically to commit
political suicide.

Should they ever do this how, if the experi-
ment turned out badly for them, would they get
the power back which they had lost? Shorn of
their strength, and chastened by the afflictions,
which lie waiting for them under such a system,
they could then only utter vain regrets for the
step which they were unable to retrace, and find
themselves sadder and wiser men.

Where could these men look for refuge?
Surely not in their own State, for the women
would outvote them easily when their vote should
be added to that of the men who were weak
enough to give them suffrage in the first instance.
If every State in the Union adopted Woman's
Suffrage these men could find relief nowhere but

320 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

by entirely expatriating themselves, by going to
some other country where these rules were not
in force. But if some other State in the Union
still afforded a refuge, why should not any man
who was opposed to this system and who found
himself oppressed by it consider this State as a
haven for him, and select it for his home? Good
government, and sane rules in regard to the do-
mestic relations should prove attractions of the
first magnitude. Let the States of the South,
therefore, not follow the unwise lead of these
Western States and imitate a thing which they
may find they have done to their own undoing, but
let our Southern States take advantage of the
situation offered to strengthen ourselves for all
time to come.

Virginia has gone through enough trials in her
history not to add this one to them. Let us rather
profit by the mistakes of these other States, and re-
deem some of the losses we have suffered in the
past. We still have a sufficiently large territory
within which to erect a powerful Commonwealth
if we be true to our traditions, and if we do not
allow ourselves to be led away with every wind
of vain doctrine. Only in the last few years has
the South, after a generation of trouble, been
able to throw off the incubus of a mass of unde-
sirable voters who were inflicted upon us by the
very sections from which now emanates this new
movement to lower the standard and qualification
of citizenship. The advance we have made and

CONCLUSION 321

the prosperity we are now enjoying as the result
of this victory should not be endangered by any
such hazardous experiment.

Let well enough alone. Instead of embracing
the cause of Suffrage let us have the fortitude to
resist and to reject emphatically and cast out this
modern heresy, and so keep out of the political
quagmire we would surely fall into if we ever
adopted this false doctrine. Let us hold out to
the men afflicted with Woman's Suffrage in the
West the possibility of establishing in the South
a home worthy of the name. To our shores have
been driven in the past the Huguenot persecuted
in France for his religion, and the Cavalier, perse-
cuted in England for his loyalty. Let us continue
to be able to afford now and for the future a
refuge for the husbands and fathers persecuted
by the Suffragettes of the West for being men.

We need not let ourselves be much affected by
the arguments for woman's suffrage made by any
of the men in the Western States that have
adopted it. They are naturally disposed to see all
the other men in the country do the same, for just
as long as they do not these others will occupy a
position superior to themselves. These western
men can, if they choose, lower themselves po-
litically and otherwise just as much as they want
to; and we. can, if we choose, forever retain our
position of greater dignity and importance and
all our ancient rights and liberties.

UA Fox," says ^Esop, "being caught in a steel

322 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

trap by his tail, was glad to compound for his es-
cape with the loss of it; but, upon coming abroad
into the world, he began to be so sensible of the
disgrace such a defect would bring upon him that
he almost wished he had died rather than left it
behind him. However, to make the best of a
bad matter, he formed a project in his head to
call an assembly of the rest of the Foxes, and
propose for their imitation the cutting off of one's
tail as a fashion that would be very agreeable
and becoming. He did so and made a long
harangue upon the unprofitableness of tails in
general. He endeavored chiefly to show the awk-
wardness and inconvenience of a Fox's tail in
particular, adding that it would be both more
graceful and more expeditious to be altogether
without a tail, and that, for his part, what he had
only imagined and conjectured before he now
found by experience, for he had never enjoyed
himself so well and found himself so easy as he
had done since he had cut off his tail. He said
no more, but looked about with a brisk air to see
what proselytes he had gained, when a sly old
thief in the company, who understood the trap,
answered him, with a leer: I believe you may
have found a conveniency in parting with your
tail, and when we are in the same circumstances
perhaps we may do so too."

What should be the most beloved spot on earth
is one's home, and the tenderest and most endur-

CONCLUSION 323

ing of human relationships cluster around it.
Here should be found love, care, and protection
for the young; affection, obedience, and reverence
for the old. Happiness for all its members will
result from a correct understanding and discharge
of the duties, rights, and mutual relations of the
persons who compose the little group here closely
united to one another. But for this, order is
essential, and order requires a leader clothed with
proper authority. Husbands and fathers are
these natural leaders. Any movement of society,
therefore, which degrades or prejudices their
position and influence cannot be right, for it is in
opposition to the established order of creation.

END

324

SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

INDEX

Abandonment, or failure to sup-
port, as well as abandon-
ment and failure to sup-
port, punishment proposed
for, 153-154.

Abbott quoted, 193-194.

Abraham and Isaac, 195.

Abyss, society moving towards,
249.

Accomplishments, women losing,
132-133.

Adoption of child without consent
of father, 201-202.

Adult, population, ^all liable to get
put in jail under act in-
tended to protect children
under seventeen, 205-206.
basis, how business of the
world could be put on,
260.

JEsop quoted, 120, 322.

Affectionate, husband can be too
much so, 141-142.

Affections, husband entitled to his
wife's, 34.

Age at which honest and wise

men marry, 123.
of children, list of, may aid
fathers in keeping out of
jail, 262-265.

Agrippina, 128.

Alimony, drastic provisions of
law relating to, to be
paid by the husband,
pending suit for divorce
against him, 108-114.
decrees for, often very se-
vere, 163.
suicide of husband rather

than pay, 147.
allowed wife against her hus-
band who was not con-
siderate enough, 151.
husband in charge of the

deputy sheriff, 178.
man against whom, is to be
decreed, 179.

American husband a byword,

75.

children also becoming a by-
word, 251.

father not respected, as much
as the Mohammedan,
315.

nor husband as well as a
Chinaman, 315.

Anatomy, should be studied by
men before marriage,
120.
Ancient City, quotations from

The, 186-191.

extent of paternal author-
ity, 187-199.
Law, quotations from, 191-

192.
Anglo-Saxon, rise and progress of

the race, 287-289.
Virginia's opportunity to
render service to the
race 316-322.
Anti-Suffragettes, work dedicated

to, 5.

the friends of man, 277-278.
Apprentice, binding of child as,

201.

in Norfolk, master of, may be
put in jail for acts of,
212-213.

rights of father as to bind-
ing child as, 223.
Arguments, of the suffragettes,
specimens of, 287-289,
289, 290-292, 292-293,
293, 293-295, 296-299,
304-309.

of this work based, on
strength, not weakness
of woman, 304.
of men from woman suffrage
States unreliable, 321-
322.

Assassination of the President at-
tempted by a boy of sev-
enteen, 236-237.
Authority, ancient paternal, 187-

199.
present lack of paternal, 199-

254.

final blow to parental, 211.
generally commands respect,

226-227.
has declined far enouh, 309-

310.

Automobile, widow with new, 181.
Baby, husband judicially sen-
tenced to walk the floor
with the, 152, 153.
Baby-carriages, husbands rolling,

Bachelor, idleness in a, and in a
married man, compared,
122.

INDEX

325

life of intelligent, worth liv-
ing, 123.
may thrive by observation,

124.

new definition of, 165.
Bacon quoted, 119, 119.
Balzac quoted, 120.
Bankruptcy, husband put in, by
wife and d,aughter-in-
law, 157-158.

Barbarian invasion, woman's suf-
frage worse than, 312-
313.

Barry, Countess du, 130.
Bassanio and Portia, 94.
Battle, marriage a field of, 121.
Beating of husband by man hired
for the purpose by his
wife, 144-145.

Bed, police called in to decide on
which side of, consorts
should sleep, 91.
husband made to sleep with

dog in, 137-138.
wife killed in quarrel over
which should get up
first, 138.

Beginning, marriage a, 123.
"Better Half," perverted ideas
in relation thereto, 126-
132.

Bible, rules of, in relation to
husban dand wife, 15-18,
23, 83-84.

our former rules of law in

regard to husbands and

fathers more in harmony

with the, 25.

New Testament rules as to

divorce, 83-84.
enjoins orderly construction

of society, 100.
provision for the future of

the family, 170.
rules in relation to parent
and child, 185, 266-267.
instances of the ancient pa-
ternal authority, 194-
198.

E raise of children, 198-199.
ow parental authority en-
forced under the Mosaic
law, 214.

family life now should be
regulated as far as pos-
sible in accordance with,
268-269.

Birthright _ of man involved in
suit brought by suf-
fragettes, 312-313.

Blind leading the blind, 277-

279.
Blessing, whether woman now a,

to a man, 125.
Borgia, Lucretia, 129.
"Boss," case of wife who would

be, 145-146.
Bulwer quoted, 125.
Buried his wife, the man who

had, and the man who

had not, 122.
Burton quoted, 119.
Butterworth quoted, 124.
Byron quoted, 123.
Campbell quoted, 146.
Care taken of us when we are

born, die and marry, 124.
Catharine II., 129.
Catharine de Medici, 130.
Chain-gang, husband rather be

sent to, than live with his

wife, 148-150.
Chains, husbands and fathers

liable to be sent to work

in, on the public roads

for non-support, when

they live in cities of over

15,000, 52-59.
Chancery, courts of, alone should

exercise discretio nary

powers, 247-248.
Characters which might be seen

in any of our cities, 178-

181.
Charge, husband, willing to pay

any reasonable, for the

satisfaction of hitting his

wife, 154.
Chattel, meaning of, 21.

wife not an owned, 175.
Cheating works never thrive, 78-

80.
Child, father in general entitled

to the care of, 80, 222.
one killed by a mother, 145.
Chapters on father and, 185-

269.

the father the source and ori-
gin of the life of the,

186-187.
father has now no interest in

property of a living, 200.
taking of, from father, 200-

202, 248, 258-259.
father put in jail for not sup-
porting, 202-206.
under seventeen, Act intended

to protect, 202-206.
a dangerous creature now to

have around, 205-206.

326

SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

under fourteen may be taken
from its parents for
many causes, 206-207.
whipping, better than juve-
nile court, 206.
whipped by order of court,

207-208.

committing of, to Prison As-
sociation of Va., 208-
209.
and to Negro Reformatory

Ass'n of Va., 209.
Act in regard to cruelty to,

210.

dependent, wayward, or delin-
quent, may be taken by
State Board of Charities
and Corrections, 211.
more under the authority of
its guardian than its
father, 211. .

wages of, not liable for the
debts of his parents, 215-
216.

property of, cannot be leased,
sold nor encumbered by
parent, 216.

small sum arising in a suit
belonging to, may be paid
to one of its parents, 216.
descent of property belong-
ing to, 217-219.
may be a millionaire, and

father poor, 218.
control of property belonging
to married woman who is
an infant, 219.
who entitled to the damages
on account of death of,
219.

interest of, alone considered
in question of their cus-
tody, 220.
modes of appointment of

guardian for, 220-221.
guardian and father in their
relations to each other
and to wife and child,
224-233.

powers over, taken from their
fathers and transferred
to a court, 227-228.
natural effect of recent legis-
lation upon the character
of the, 232-254.
property ^ set fire to by, 235.
wanton injury of property by,

235-236.

attempt of youth of seven-
teen to assassinate the
President, 236-237.

of seven kills playmate, 237.
of ten shoots another boy,

237.
of five tries to wreck train,

237-238.

keeping in order of children
becomes more and more
difficult under recent Act,
239-250.

under seventeen allowed, to

commit one crime with

more or less impunity,

239-250.

this made a privileged class

of criminals, 245-248.
generally leniently dealt with

by juries, 250.

laxity in bringing up of chil-
dren due to the women,
251-254.
fate of, in home broken up

by divorce, 253-254.
training of the, injured by re-
cent legislation, 261-262.
suggestion to aid fathers keep-
ing out of jail, by hav-
ing list of ages of his
children, 262-265.
belongs even to unworthy par-
nets, 266-268.

Christian, according to the policy
of recent statutes, mar-
riage no longer, 117-118.
Church, which husband and wife

should attend, 74.
claims jurisdiction over mar-
riage and divorce, and is
on the side of the hus-
band, 255.
Cibber quoted, 123.
Citizens, rights of, not properly
regarded in the matter of
condemning husbands and
fathers to work on the
public roads for non-sup-
port, 56-60.

law abiding^, must have his train-
ing in the home, 252.
Civilization, ours off the track,

77-78.

Cleopatra, 128.
Clinging type of woman becoming

rarer, 114.

Clothes-tree, picture of husband
beaten by his life over
the head with, 76.
Clytemnestra, 127.
Colton quoted, 121.
Comfortable, whether woman

makes a house, 121.
Commandment, the fifth, 185.

INDEX

327

Community, of property rights as
between husband and
wife — none at common
law, 27.

theory of, 102-105.
Compulsory education, condition of

parents under, 167-168.
Conditions in domestic affairs go-
ing from bad to worse,
162-163.

Congreve quoted, 119, 120.
Consent, of father superior to
mother as to marriage of
child, 222-223.

Contempt of court, husband liable
to be put in jail for, for
not paying alimony, costs
of suits and fees of coun-
sel, when suit for divorce
is brought against him,
108-114.

in removing child under sev-
enteen who has committed
a crime, 243.

dpctrine of, used to subvert
constitutional guarantees,
243.
Contract, wife could make none at

common law, 29.
marriage, what could be ef-
fected by, 136.
specimen of one according to

recent ideas, 151-152.
women's disregard of, 302.
Court House, the characters seen

hanging around, 180.
claims jurisdiction over mar-
riage and divorce, and is
on the side of the wom-
an, 255-259.

one of the millstones grind-
ing husbands and fathers
to pieces, 255, 259.
hostile to husband, 257-259.
Courtship compared to marriage,

120, 125.

Cowper quoted, 142-143.
Crawford, quoted, 122.
Craze, women and children, 282-

283.

Crime, children under seventeen
allowed to commit one,
each, with more or less
impunity, 239-250.
Criminal, children under seven-
teen made privileged class
of, 239-250.

courts not proper ones to
which to give discretion,
247-248.
Croesus, stepmother of, 128.

Cruelty, grounds for divorce, 86.
a particular case of suit for di-
vorce for, in New York, 90.
alleged by wife against her
husband who kept thirty
cents of his own week's
wages, 150.
act in regard to, to children,

210.

Crusades, 283.

Curfew laws proposed against hus-
bands, 73-74.
Courtesy, rules in regard to, 30,

32, 33, 39, 221-222.
Damages, for death of infant, who

entitled to, 219.

Danger, in constituting children
under seventeen a privi-
leged class of criminals,
239-250.

in the extension of the doc-
trine of contempt of court,
243.

in giving a discretionary pow-
er to criminal courts,
247-248.
to our judicial system from too

much law, 264-265.
men of the western hemisphere
facing a threatening, with
irresolution, 312.
in adopting women's suffrage,

317-322.

Dark Ages may be brought again
upon the world by do-
mestic disorder, 159.
Daughter, the word, passing out

of our language, 76.
sues her father for small sum,

259-260.

David quoted, 170.
Davidson quoted, 124.
Death, less serious than marriage,

121, 125.
of child, descent of property,

217-219.
damages for, of infant, who

entitled to, 219.
Debt, leads to marriage, 121.
Decline of authority has gone far

enough, 309-310.
De Coulanges quoted, 186-191.
Delilah, suffragettes compared to,

276.

Deluge, threatens all unless hus-
bands and fathers be
clothed with more author-
ity, 300-301.
Descent of property on dea.th of

child, 217-219.
father preferred, 222*

328

SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

Desertion, ground of divorce, 85.
Diamonds held to be necessaries in

Indiana, 70-72.

Dickens quoted, 125, 125-126.
Dictator, last resort for the safety

of the state, 100.
Difficulties besetting marriage,

118-126, 137-181.
Dignity of life lowered by some

women's ideas, 303.
Discretion, given to court in trial
'of children und,er seven-
teen, 246-248.

vesting discretionary powers in
criminal courts a danger-
ous policy, 247-248.
Disorder, present, in the state of
marriage, 137-181.

domestic and civil, due to lack
of training in obedience
to fathers on the part of
children, 233-254.

encouraged by act in regard
to crimes committed by
children under seventeen,
239-250.

elements of, in favor of fe-
male suffrage, 278-279.

inevitable result of legislation
against natural order,
279.

Divorce, rules of the New Testa-
ment as to, 83-84.

not allowed in South Carolina,
83.

some of the grounds for, in
Virginia, 84-86.

specimens of suits for, in Mis-
souri, 86-90.

natural result of recent legis-
lation, 96-97.

will increase until order re-
stored to the relation of
husband and wife, 97.

condition of, in Rome, under
the Empire, 104-105.

most suits for, brought by
women, 105-108.

some of the causes suggested
for the great number of,
106-108.

Virginia statute which applies
against the husband, when
wife brings suit for, 108-
.114.

in disfavor in Virginia, 116.

uniformity of laws on, not
desirable for us, 116-118.

four members of same family
suing for, 139.

granted against husband who

was not considerate
enough, 151.

against husband who had the
hookwomn, 154.

asked for because husband was
not making enough
money, 154-155.

effect and object of suits for,
163.

wife had no right to, in primi-
tive times, 188.

by decree in, suit, father may
have to support children
in his wife's possession,
220.

what becomes of the children
when homes broken up
by, 253-254.
Dix quoted, 122.
Dog, husband made to sleep with,

137-138.

Domestic, anarchy cause of trage-
dies, 50-51.

happiness, Cowper quoted, 142-
143.

disorder, how the laws are in-
terpreted and administered
by some of the lower tri-
bunals in cases involving,
160-163.

affairs, conditions in, going
from bad to worse, 162-
163.

worship of the ancients, 186-
188.

importance of legislation af-
fecting, 204-205.

construction of Virginia af-
fected by recent legisla-
tion, 223-254.

what quality calculated to pro-
duce the greatest happi-
ness, 224-254.

life, approved system of, being
overthrown by recent acts,
248-250, 261-262.

bad effect of State interfering
in, affairs, 267-268.

laws affecting, relations should
be in harmony with our
natures, and immutable,
280.

Doubtful, sovereignty, domestic
disorder similar to wars
that grow out of, 159-160.
Dower, meaning of the words in
the marriage ceremony re-
lating to, 20-23.

common law rule as to, 27.
"Down with the tyrant man," 133.
Dreyfus, Madam, obtained release

INDEX

329

of her husband from Dev-
il's Island, 84.

Drunkards, confirmed, may be sent
to work on the roads, 52-
58.

Duties, of husband to wife en-
forced by severe penal-
ties, while those she owes
him not enforced, 68-69.
as between husband and wife,
and father and child, only
those due by the husband
and father enforced, 45,
135-136.

a wife's idea of the, her hus-
band owed her, 150.
as exemplified in a recent
marriage contract, 151-
152.

of child to honor parents, 185.
of wives to their husbands
and children, importance
of, 277.

Early marriages, 120, 124.

Enst, ancestors worshipped in, 232.

Education, compulsory, position of
parents under, 167-168.

Eggs and the conjurer's box, 125.

Elevation of women, 309.

Eliot quoted, 123, 123-125.

Encumbrance, of land belonging to
child, cannot be made by
father, 216.

Endowment at the church door,
20-23.

Equitable separate estates, may still
be created so as to exclude
husband from his wife's
property, 41.

Evidence, rules of, betweeri hus-
band and wife, 80-82.

Evil eye, husbands viewed with,
162-163.

Excellence of women, doctrine of,
discussed, 126-132.

Exemptions, dishonest, partly the
cause of hostile legislation
against husbands and
father, 78-80.

Family, slaughtered by the father,

143.
others nearly exterminated,

146, 150-151, 233.
slaughtered by the wife, 148-

149.

punishment proposed for hus-
bands who abandon or fail
to support, 153-154.
violence and bloodshed in,

character of, 159.
sacredness of, attacked during

French Revolution, 176-
177.

religion of the ancients, 186-
188.

not proper subject to be regu-
lated by a judge, 253.

life should be regulated in ac-
cordance with the Bible,

groups make up society, 279.

women cannot properly be the

head of, 279.

Father, recent legislation hostile to,
25, 45-6, 219-220, 222.

may be put in jail for non-sup-
port of child, 43-52.

contemptible condition to
which reduced under mod-
ern legislation, 45-50, 52-
59, 227-234.

in cities over 15,000 may be
sent to the roads for non-
support, 52-59.

reduced to slavery. 45, 133-
136.

kills son, 145.

deserted during summer vaca-
tion, 166.

chapters on, and child, 185-
269.

honor due to, 185.

present liberty of wife and
child at the expense of,
185-186.

the principal parent, 186.

the source and origin of the
life of the child, 186-187.

ancient authority of, 187-199,
226-227.

priest of the hearth, 187-188.

over wife and child, 188-199.

alone responsible to the state,
189-190.

judicial within the home, 190-
195.

all property in the family be-
longed to, 189-194.

present weak authority of, 199-
254.

treated now as a public ene-
my, 199.

has no interest in the prop-
erty of living children,
200, 211, 215.

children taken from, 200-202,
248, 258-259.

binding .of child as apprentice,
201.

guardian may take child from
father in certain cases,
201.

330

SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

child may be taken from, by
overseer of the poor in
certain cases, 201.

child may be adopted without
consent of, 201-202.

may be put in jail for not sup-
porting child, 202-206.

or sentenced to the public
roads, 203.

has apparently no rights in
regard to child accompany-
ing mother to peniten-
tiary or born there, 206.

children under fourteen may
be taken from, by the
court for a number of
causes, 206-207.

whipping children by order of
court, instead of by, 207-208.

children taken from, on the
ground of cruelty, and so
forth, 210.

remnants of authority of,
swept away, 211, 213-214,
222.

has less rights to his child's
property and person, than
the guardian, 211.

punishment of, for giving chil-
dren certain things, 211-
212.

in Norfolk, may be put in jail
for acts committed by
child, 212-213.

how he enforced his authority
under the law of Moses,
214.

is not guardian ex officio,
215, 225.

has no right to bring suit for
child, 215.

nor defend suit brought
against him, 215.

debts of, no claim against
wages of child, 215-216.

cannot lease, sell nor encum-
ber property of child, 216.

may receive small sum arising
in suit, belonging to his,
216.

rights of, on death of his
child, 217-219.

may be poor, and child a mil-
lionaire, 218.

how treated in regard to the
property of a married
daughter who is a minor,
219.

his child, 219.
no relief intended for, in any

new legislation, all is hos-
tile to him, 219-220.
by decree of divorce, may be
compelled to support chil-
dren in his wife's pos-
session, 220.

child, not the father, consid-
ered in the question of the
child's custody, 220.

consent of guardian to mar-
riage of child, overrides
objection of parents, 220.

appointment of guardian by,
220-221, 222.

courtesy of, 30, 32, 33, 39,

221-222.

rights between, and mother,
222-223.

in general entitled, to the cus-
tody of the children, 80,
222.

preferred in the descent of

property, 222.

rights superior in consenting to
marriage of child, 222-
223.

right to bind child as appren-
tice, 223.

viewed in contrast with guard-
ian, 224-233.

recent laws injurious to the
development of the charac-
ter of, 230-232.

in the East, worshipped as a
divinity, 232.

present position to which,
often reduced, 232, 260.

shoots son and, daughter, 233.

often killed in family quar-
rels, 233-234.

not a judge but the, the prop-
person to regulate a fam-
ily, 253.

as presented, on the stage, 255-
257.

sued by his daughter for
small sum, 259-260.

suggestion to aid, in keeping
out of jail, 262-265.

there should be one State in
which a man was the real,
of his children, 265.

suffragete argument to take
away the headship of his
family, 290-292.

power of, must be reestab-
lished, 300-301.

Feast, marriage what kind of, 121.
Fire, need of, to put wife in, 125.
Ford quoted, 124.

INDEX

For Sale, the pretty house which

was, 180.

Forty, marriage to men after, 121.
different views of men of, and

boys, 123.

Fox who had lost his tail, like the
men from women suffrage
states, 322.

Freedom of wife and child does
not extend to husband and
father, 134.

French Revolution, some women
who helped to bring on,
130.

the knitting women, 131.
men now acting like Louis

XVI., 312.

family life attacked, 176-177.
Fugitive from justice, indictment
of, for felony a ground of
divorce, 85.
slave law applies to husbands

and fathers, 134.
Funeral of man shot by his wife,

179.

Good, only course left after mar-
riage is to be, 125.
Goods, meaning of, in the marriage

ceremony, 21.
Gout cured by marrying a certain

kind of widow, 125-126.
Government, ideas of, weakened by
too much criticism, 277-
278.

Grave, description of the road to,

for the married man, 124.

some which might be seen in

the cemetery, 179.
progress of husband, is toward

slavery and the, 304.
Greene, Mrs. Hetty, quoted, 107.
Guardian, may take child from
father in certain cases,
201.

has rights superior to the
father in regard to the
person and property of
the child, 211.

in Norfolk, may be put in jail
for acts of ward, 212-213.
father not ex officio, 215, 225.
ad litem, not the father, de-
fends suit against child,
215.

consent of, to marriage, over-
rides objection of parents,
220.
modes of appointment of, 220-

221, 222.

father viewed in contrast with,
224-233.

Guardianship, suffragette argument
to deprive father of pow-
ers in relation to, of his
child. 290-292.

Hanging and, marriage, 119, 123.

Happiness of all the members of
the family, end desired,
92-93.

with or without a wife, 122.
what policy most likely to
produce, 224-254.

Hard cases make bad laws, 262,
267.

Hart quoted, 124-125.

Hay quoted, 122.

Head, of the family, husband the

natural, 91-101, 279.
necessity for, in every group,

91-93, 269, 279.
disorder in the domestic cir-
cle due to lack of recog-
nized, 159-160, 268-269.
woman cannot be proper, of

the family. 279.
suffragette argument to pre-
vent father from being,
of his family, 290-292.

Heaven, no marriages in, 122.

Helen, 127.

Help, wanted by woman for man
to beat her husband, 144-
145.

needed, by man who is in fa-
vor of woman's suffrage,
295-296.

Herodias, 127.

Hiring of a husband to his wife
under a certain decree,
140.

History, some conspicuous women
who have appeared in,
126-132.

Hitting, husband willing to pay
any reasonable charge
for the satisfaction of,
his wife, 154.

Home, case where husband driven
from, yet liable for the
support of, 59-64.
invaded by recent legislation,

the word, being ruined, 77.

generally wrecked by women,
105-108.

some causes alleged for the
destruction of the, 106-
108.
sweet home, 68.

ideal, portrayed by Camp-
bell, 146.

supplanted by residence, 158.

332

SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

being annihilated by present
day infidelity, 176-177.

place for the training of law
abiding citizens, 252.

broken up by divorce, what
becomes of the children,
253-254.

father should be supreme in
the, 265.

being destroyed by recent
legislation, 288-289.

would be ruined by the suf-
fragettes, 311.
what it should be, 323.
Homestead exemptions, effect of,

78-80.

Hookworm, divorce against hus-
band who had, 154.
Hope, second marriage a triumph

of, 121.
Horseleach, suffragettes daughters

of, 78.
Hostages, wife and children are,

given to fortune, 119.
House, wife driven put of at
night, asks divorce, 87,
88.
"Hubby," the word, prejudicial to

all husbands, 75-76.
Hunting and fishing by husband,
wife bases suit for di-
vorce partly on, 86-87.
Husband and Wife, Chapters on,
15-181.

divine view' of his relation to
his wife, 15-18, 23.

authority of, 18.

recent legislation hostile to,
25, 45-50, 52-59, 72-74,
108-114, 164, 222, 260-
261.

former rights and powers, 26.

property rights of, at com-
mon law, 26-30.

liable at common law for the
debts and torts of his
wife, 28-29.

modification of his rights in
regard to his wife s prop-
erty by statute, 30-34, 41.

sole distributee of the chat-
tels of his wife, if she
die intestate, 32.

entitled, to his wife's affec-
tions, 34.

may forfeit all right to her
estate by abandonment or
desertion, 41-42.

may be put in jail for not
supporting wife, 43-52,
202.

what is the "support" for

which he is liable, 51-52.
in cities of over 15,000, may

be sent to work on the

roads for non-support,

52-59.
case illustrating liability of,

for non-support, when,

driven from home, 59-

64.
rights of, under law at time

of marriage, taken away

by modern legislation,

65-68.
breakfasts proposed to be

taken from, who stays

out late, 74.
responsible themselves for

some of their afflictions,

74.

the American, a byword, 75.
picture of, beaten with a

clothes-tree, 76.
in general entitled to the care

of the children, 80, 222.
rules of evidence between, and

wife, 80-82.
natural head of the family,

91-101.

now denied nearly every-
thing, 93.
office of, 101.
cause of hostile legislation

against him, in regard to

wife's property, 102-105.
rules as to compelling the

payment of alimony, costs

of suit against him, and

fees of opposing counsel,

108-114.
Balzac's view of the trials of,

120.
reduced to slavery, 45, 133-

138.

converted into a "star board-
er" by a certain d,ecree of

divorce, 139-140.
hired out to his wife, 140.
arrested by his wife on the

street, 140-141.
shot by his wife, 140.
can be too affectionate, 141-

142.

divorced, kills wife, 143-144.
beaten by man hired for the

purpose by his wife, 144-

145.
commits suicide rather than

pay alimony, 147.
wife has the right to rob,

in Chicago, 147-148.

INDEX

333

judicially sentenced to walk
the floor with the baby,
152-153.

punishment proposed for
those who abandon or
fail to support, instead of
abandoning and failing to
support, 153-154.

wife tried for the killing of
her, 155.

shoots wife Christmas Day,
155-156.

kills wife and commits sui-
cide, 156-157.

killed, by wife, 157.

put in bankruptcy by wife,
157-158.

beaten on the head by wife
with stone, 158.

shot by his wife, 159.

viewed with an evil eye by
legislators, 162-163.

picture of, beaten with roll-
ing-pin, 165-166.

deserted during summer va-
cation, 167.

burdens of the life-insurance
system, 168-174.

murdered by his wife for the
life-insurance, 172-174.

respect formerly due him in
Virginia, 175-176.

better adjustment of property
rights between, and wife
could be effected, 177. ^

new rights of wife and child
at expense of, and father,
185-186.

how treated in regard to
management of property
belonging to his wife who
is a minor, 219.

courtesy of, 30, 32, 33, 39,
221-222.

as presented on the stage,
255-256.

suffragette argument to have
wife supersede, 290-292.

suffragette system for final
dethronement of, 295.

powers of, must be reestab-
lished, 300-301.

progress of, is toward slavery

and the grave, 304.
Idleness, in a bachelor and in a

married man, 122.
Incompatibility of temper, 86.
Independence of wife, an illogical
scheme of marriage, 91-
97.
Indignities, husband subjected to

by wife, brings suit for
divorce, 87, 88, 89, 90.

Infamous offence, conviction of,
ground of divorce, 84.

Infidelity, new form of, attacking
the home, 176-177.

Inge quoted, 103-105, 192-194.

Injunction, to prevent husband
disposing of his property
pending suit for divorce
against him, 108-114.

Insane wife, husband, liable for
the support of, to the
relief of her estate, 69.

Insurance, life, burdens of the
husband under the over-
doing of, 168-174.

Irving quoted, 121.

Isabella, 129.

It's coming, a favorite argument
of the suffragettes, 289.
should be negatived at
once by men, 313.

Jack of all trades, 290.

Jail, husband may be put in, for
not supporting wife, 43-
52.

husbands and fathers liable to
be put in, on account of
irresponsibility due to dis-
honest exemption laws,
78-80.

husbands and fathers liable
to be put in, for failure
to pay alimony, costs of
suit, fee of opposing
counsel, pending suit for
divorce against him, 108-
114.

used to enforce obligation of
husband to support wife,
while there is no means
of enforcing the dis-
charge of her duties to
him, 135-136.

only place a certain hus-
band could sleep in
peace, 142.

putting married "loafers" in,

how the punishment

should be made to fit the

crime, 153-154.

awaits the husband who does

not pay alimony, 163.
would await parents under
compulsory educa t i o n
scheme, 167-168.
men seen in, for non-sup-
port, 179.

father may be put in, for not
supporting child, 202-206.

334

SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

whole adult population liable
to be put in, under act
intended to protect chil-
dren under seventeen,
205-206.

father may be put in for giv-
ing various articles to his
children, 211-212.
effect on children of hearing
of their fathers being
put in, for non-support,
232.
suggestion to aid fathers in

keeping out of, 262-265.
putting husband^ and fathers
in, the method adopted to
make an illogical system
work, 267-268.

Janus, temple of, 159-160.

Jealousy of wife and disturbance
in his occupation, alleged
as ground of divorce, 88.

Jephthah's daughter, 196-198.

Jezebel, 127.

Johnson quoted, 121, 123, 124.

Josephine, her idea of the glory
of women, 100.

Judges, their proper duties not
that of regulating fami-
lies, 253.

Jus vi tcenecisque, 191-199.

Just causes, what are they, for
the wilful neglect of wife
and minor children, 52.

Justice of the Peace, jurisdiction
over husbands proposed
to be given to, 72-73.

Juvenal quoted, 104, 119.

Juvenile courts, plan of opera-
tions proposed for local,
48-50.

manifestation and result of
decay of parental author-
ity, 206.

not worth as much as a good
whipping, 206.

Katharina, her admonition to
women, 98.

Kenelm, sister of, 129.

Killing, of wife over quarrel as
to who should rise first,
138.

of son-in-law by his mother-
in-law for alleged insult,
138-139.
husband shot by his wife,

141.

of a whole family by the fa-
ther, 143.

of wife by divorced husband,
143-144.

of son by father, 145.

of children by mother, 145.

of nearly all the members of
a family, 146.

of whole family by the wife,
148-149.

wife tried for the, of her hus-
band, 155.

wife killed, husband commits
suicide, 156-157.

husband killed by wife, 157.

husband killed, by his wife
for his life insurance,
172-174.

of father by son, 234.

of aunt by nephew, 234-235.

of one child of seven by an-
other, 237.

Kipling quoted, 121, 124, 125.
Knitting women, 131.
"Land of the free," etc., 77.
Landor quoted, 121.
Latin, quotations from the, 104,

105.

Law, its effect upon standards of
conduct, 24.

recent, hostile to husbands
and fathers, 25, 45-50,
52-59, 72-74, 108-114,
164, 199-254, 260-261.

suits, women generally re-
sponsible therefor, 119.

how interpreted and admin-
istered in cases of do-
mestic disorder, 160-163.

of Virginia calculated to dis-
courage marriage, 164.

effect of repeal of recent laws
in relation to husband and
wife, 177.

everybody should be made to
obey the, 97, 250.

hard cases make bad, 262,
267.

we have too much, 264-265.

regulating domestic relations
should be in accordance
with our natures, and im-
mutable, 280.

Code and Acts of Virginia
referred to in this work:

Sec. 2286 A, 30, 39.

Acts 1899-1900, p. 1240, 31,
32, 41.

Sec. 2291, 31, 219, 222.

Sec. 2292 A; Acts 1891-92, p.
391, 32.

Sec. 2257, 32, 84.

Sec. 2258, 84, 86.

Sec. 2548, 33.

Sec. 2293, 33, 222.

INDEX

335

Sec. 2556, 33, 42.

Sec. 2294, 41.

Acts 1904, p. 208, 44, 65.

Acts 1910, p. 570, 44, 204,

263, 264.

Acts 1912, p. 396, 56.
Sec. 1707, 69.
Sec. 4117, 69.
Sec. 2610, 80.
Sec. 3846 A; Acts 1901-Z. p.

798, 81.
Sec. 2261, 108.
Sees. 2599, 2600, 2603, 1606,

200.

Sec. 2610, 201.
Sec. 2263, 201, 220.
Sec. 2581, 201, 228.
Sec. 2589, 201.
Sec. 2582, 201.
Sec. 2583, 201.
Sec. 2614 A, 202.
Sec. 3795 C; Acts 1904, p.

208, 202, 232.
Sec. 4124, 206.
Sec. 3795; Acts 1901-2, p.

125, 207.
Sec. 3902 A; Acts 1897-f, p.

859, 208, 228, 264.
Sec. 4178 D, 209, 228, 264.
Sec. 4173 E, 209.
Sec. 3795 A; Acts 1896-6, p.

701, 210, 263.
Sec. 1105 D, 210.
Acts 1912, p. 621, 211.
Sec. 2603, 211, 222.
Sec. 3828 B, 212, 263.
Sec. 726, 212.
Sec. 3828 C, 212, 263.
Charter of Norfolk, Sec. 19,

paragraph 20, 213.
Sec. 2600; 2602; 2603; 2564;

215.

Sec. 2614, 215.
Sec. 2618; 2629; 3255; 8436;

215.

Sec. 3652 C, 216.
Sec. 2615, 2616, 216.
Acts 1908, p. 45, 216.
Sec. 2513, 217.
Sec. 2548, 217, 222.
Sec. 2556, 218, 222.
Sec. 2513, 218.
Sec. 2557, 2548, 219.
Sec. 2904, 219.
Sec. 2218, 220.
Sec. 2600, 221.
Sec. 2597, 221.
Sec. 2286, A; 222.
Sec. 2597, 222.
Sec. 2557, 222.
Sec. 2218, 223.

Sec. 2591, 223.

Acts 1910, p. 434-7, 244, 264.
Lawful authority must be obeyed

by all, 97, 250.

Lease, of land belonging to child,
father cannot make, 216.
Lee, Mrs., her relation to her hus-
band, 176.

Legislation, apparent lack of care
with which effected, 59,
204, 245.

objection to the recent, in do-
mestic matters, 68-69.

recent, all directed to duties
husband owes wife — no
regard paid to duties she
owes him, 68-69.

"freak," proposed against hus-
bands, 72-74.

dishonest exemptions part of
the cause of hostile,
against husbands and fath-
ers, 78-80.

cause of, against the husband
in regard to his wife's
property, 102-104.

now conceived on the theory
that the men are all bad,
and, the women all good,
126-132.

husbands viewed with an evil
eye in matters of, 162-
163.

fathers also, 219-220.

importance of, affecting do-
mestic relations, 204.

contrast afforded by ancient
rules of law, and modern,
as affecting the rights of
men, 214-215.

recentness of, hostile to fath-
ers and husbands, 228.

natural construction of do-
mestic life being over-
thrown by recent, 248-
250; 261-262.

illogical system substituted,
249.

recent, particularly hostile to
husbands, 257-258.

much recent, should be re-
pealed, 260, 316.

recent, calculated to prejudice
woman's position in the
South, 285-286.

man's unfitness for, according

to a suffragette, 293-295.
Life insurance, husbands burdened

by overdoing of, 168-174.
the father the source and ori-
gin of, 186-187.

336

SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

dignity of, lowered by ideas of
some women, 303.

not worth living under wom-
an's rule, 303.

Life Insurance, burdens of the hus-
band under overdoing of,
168-174.

bad policy of, to the individ-
ual. 170-171.

bad policy of, to the State,
171.

husband murdered by his wife
for the, 172-174.

man whose premium falls d,ue
to-day, 178.

widow who has just collected,

181.

Liquor, female suffrage viewed in
connection with, question,
306-309.

"Loafers," married, who hang
around their families, pun-
ishment proposed for, 153-
154.
"Lord! have mercy on a married

man," 58.

Louis XVI., men of to-day acting
with same irresolution as,
312.

Love, between husband arid wife
should be promoted by
proper rules of marriage,
94-95, 268-269.

marriage from, compared, with
vinegar from wine, 123.

relief to be out of, 123.

of father for child reduced to
minimum under recent
laws, 231-232.

in all the family relations, pro-
moted by regulating the
family in accordance with
the Bible, 268-269.
Lytton quoted, 120.
Macomber, Mary F., quoted, 106-

107.

Maine quoted, 191-192.
Man, whether woman be now a
blessing to, 125.

loss to, from present woman's
movement, 132-133, 273-
283, 296-299, 303, 315-316.

"Down with the tyrant," 133.

wife kills husband because un-
able to make a, of him,
141.

what woman's suffrage would
do for, 162-163.

beginning to avoid marriage,
164-166.

coercive measures to induce
men to marry, 165.

age when an honest, and a
wise man marry, 123.

attacked in regard to control
of women and children,
251-254.

present position of, in regard
to woman's suffrage, 279-
280.

his unfitness for legislation, ac-
cording to a suffragette,
293-295.

in favor of woman's suffrage,
needs help, 295-296.

changed relations between, and
woman, 296-299.

alleged to be out of date, 296-
299.

reward he has received for
yielding to woman's de-
mands, 299.

the reserve force in every
State, 302.

not the ballot, but, woman's
best protector, 304-306.

should settle all political ques-
tions, 290, 307-308, 313.

result if political power of,
were lost, 308-309.

condition of, would be lowered
by woman's suffrage, 309.

why, should oppose the suf-
fragette, 311-313.

birthright of, involved in suit
brought by the suffra-
gettes, 312-313.

acting with irresolution in the
face of a great danger,
312.

asked by the suffragettes to
give up highest rights for
nothing, 318-319.

position of, in woman's suf-
frage and other States,
318-322.

Maps, used by the suffragettes to
lampoon the States which
do not agree with them,
293.

Margaret of Anjou, 130.
Marie Antoinette, 130.
Marriage, covenants in the cere-
mony of, 18-23.

importance of proper rules
regulating, 23-24.

modifications of, according to
the ideas of women, 75.

vulgarization of, 90-91.

should be so regulated as to
best promote love be-

INDEX

337

tween husband and, wife,

94-97.
condition of, in Rome under

the Empire, 103-105.
respected in Virginia, 116.
under new legislation, no

longer Christian, 117-118.
Socrates' views of, 118.
proper age for, according to

Thales, 119.
inherent difficulties besetting

the relation of, 118-126.
viewed by those who are in

and those who are out,

119.

and hanging, 119, 123.
curse of, 119.
a desperate thing, 119.
why so few are happy, 119.
in haste, 119.
early, 120, 124.
monotony of, 120.
familiar state of, 120.
courtship compared to, 120.
a desperate thing, 120.
attracts light-headed men,

121.

a field of battle, 121.
death less serious than, 121,

125.

often foolhardy step, 121.
after forty, 121, 123.
second, a triumph of hope,

121.

what kind of feast, 121.
the beginning of trouble, 121.
debt leads to, 121.
awaits men at the crossroads,

122.
if sold with return ticket,

122.

none in Heaven, 122.
compared with love, 123.
the nearness of, 123.
age when honest men, and

wise men marry, 123.
a beginning, 123.
best month for, 124.
a foolish act, according to

Trollope, 124.

times have changed after, 124.
may be one mode of misery,

124, 124.
must take care of ourselves

and another when we

marry, 124.
thorn-bit of, 125.
must be good after, 125.
contracts, what could be ef-
fected by such, 136.

present disordered state of,

137-181.

contract, specimen of one
drawn in accordance to
new ideas, 151-152.
sound public policy demands
the encouragement of,
163-166.

laws of Virginia tend to dis-
courage, 164.
men beginning to avoid, 164-

166, 298-299.
coercive measures to induce

men to marry, 165-166.
indispensable to the State,

165.

remedies needed to improve
present condition of,
174-177.

contrast between condition
of, in the past and pres-
ent in Virginia, 175-176.
consent of guardian to, over-
rides objection of par-
ents, 220.

consent of father superior to
that of mother in regard
to, of child, 222-223.
basis on which, should rest,

299-301.

poor prospect for, in the fu-
ture, 300-301.
Martha Washington, her relation

to her husband, 175.
Martial quoted, 104.
Mary, Queen of Scots, 129.
Medea, 127.
Merchant of Venice, quotation

from, 94.

Meredith quoted, 120, 121.
"Mess," men alleged by suffra-
gettes to have made a, of
public affairs, 287-289.
Metellus, views of, in regard to

marriage, 104.
Millionaire, child may be, and

father poor, 218.
Millstones grinding husbands and

fathers, 255-269.

Minor, estate of married woman
who is a, committed to
a receiver, 31-32.
real estate of, may be sold by

the court, 31.
Misery, marriage may be one

< mode of, 124, 124.
Mississippi Bubble, 282.
Missouri, specimens of suits for
divorce in, 86-90.

338

SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

Mistakes, political, hard to rec-
tify, 317-322.

"Mister" to be modified for mar-
ried men, 75.

Moab, King of, offers son as a
burnt offering, 196.

Mobocracy, we are moving tow-
ard, 309.

Money, divorce asked for because
husband not making
enough, 154-155.

Montaigne quoted, 119.

Morgue, man seen at, 179.

Moses, control of children under
the law of, 214.

Mother, kills children, 145.
honor due to, 185.
relation of, unduly empha-
sized, 186.

rights between, and father,
222-223.

Museum of legal curiosities, 283.

Name, of wife, 20.

putting property in, of wife,
32-33, 35-42, 217-218,
232.

parents called by first, by
children, 303.

Napoleon encouraged marriage,
164.

Nearness of the relation of mar-
riage, 123.

Necessaries, diamonds held to be,
in Indiana, 70-72.

"Needles and pins," 121.

Negro, Reformatory Ass'n of Va.,
committing children to,
209.

danger from, voting as com-
pared to women, 304-306.

"New woman" develops into the
suffragette, 273-283.

Next friend, not the father, must
bring suit for child, 215.

"No Wedding Bells for Me,"
300.

Non-support, husband may be put
in jail for, of wife, 43-
52.

and fathers may be put in
jail for, of child, 43-52.
husbands and fathers in cities
over 15,000, may be sent
to work in chains on the
roads for, 52-59.
case illustrating liability of
husband, for, 60-64.

Norfolk City, responsibility of
parents, guardians and

masters of apprentices in,
212-213.

Northwest Passage, 283.
Obedience, universal necessity for,

100.

disorder in the home due to
lack of, to father, 233-
254.

"Obedient parents," women re-
sponsible for this idea,
303.
Obey, wife's duty to, 19.

propriety of this rule, 97-

101.

what is meant by, 98-99.
all should be made to, the

law, 250.
October, best month for marriage,

124.

Office of husband, 101.
Olympias, 128.
Order, necessary for happiness,

92-93.

lack of, in the relation of hus-
band and wife, cause of
prevalence of divorce, 97.
O'Rell quoted, 123.
Overseer of the poor, may take
child from father in cer-
tain cases, 201.
Parents, honor d,ue to, enjoined

by the Bible, 185.
father the principal, 186.
responsibility of, under
charter of Norfolk, 212-
213.

what are the rights and pow-
ers of, 244-245.
even unworthy, entitled to

their children, 266-268.
obedient, women responsible

for idea of, 303.
called by their first names by

children, 303.

Paternal authority, of the an-
cients, 187-199.
instances of, in the Bible,

194-198.

present lack of, 199-254.
juvenile courts manifestation
and result of decline of,
206.
what is left of, in Virginia,

207.

final blow to, 211, 213-214.
how enforced under the Mo-
saic law, 214.

object in view in presenting
the ancient rules relating
to, 214-215.

INDEX

339

reestablishment of, would be
improvement over present
system founded on ill-
considered legisla t i o n,
249-250.

respect for all authority is
weakened, when, is broken
down, 252.

should be preserved in at least

one State, 265.
Patria potestas, 187-199.
Penitentiary, estate of husband
confined in, liable for his
wife's support, as if he
were dead, 69.

proposed as a punishment for
non-support, 72.

sentence to, ground of di-
vorce, 84.

husband rather go to, than
live with his wife, 148-
150.

child accompanying mother
to, or born in, father has
apparently no rights as
to, 206.

Personal property, wife had no
share in husband's, at
common law, 28.

Picture, of husband and wife,
husband in miniature, 74.

of husband beaten over the
head with a clothes-tree,
76.

divorce asked for because
husband had, taken with
another woman, 86.

of husband beaten over the
head with a rolling-pin,
165-166.

Pindar quoted, 120.
Pittacus quoted, 119.
Pliny the elder quoted, 125.
Plutarch quoted, 119.
Policy, sound public, requires the
encouragement of mar-
riage, 163-166.

bad, of life insurance system
when overdone, 170-171.

what, most likely to produce
domestic happiness, 224-
254.

movement for uniform laws,
a bad, for Virginia, 117.

of vesting discretionary pow-
ers in criminal courts, a
dangerous, 247-248.

of adapting woman's suffrage,
a political question of the
highest importance, 317-
322

good, for the South not to
follow the lead of the
West, in the matter of
woman's suffrage, 316-
322.

Political mistakes hard to correct,
317-322.

Pollock and Maitland quoted, 21-
23, 103.

Polydectes, wife of, 127-128.

Pompadour, 130.

Poor Richard quoted, 125.

Potiphar, wife of, 127.

President, attempt at assassina-
tion of, by boy of seven-
teen, 236-237.

Prester John, 283.

Priest of the hearth, father for-
merly the, 187-188.

Prison Ass'n of Va., committing
children to, 208-209. ^

Privileged class of criminals
made out of children un-
der seventeen, 239-250.

Privileges of women, 284, 286.
contrasted with rights, 285-
286.

Probation, fathers and husbands
left out of jail on, 43-44,
202-206.

Probation officer, new device for
punishing husband^ and
fathers for non-support,
52-59.

in relation to crimes com-
mitted by children under
seventeen, 239-250.

"Progressive ideas," 113-114, 175,
304.

Property, rights of husband as to,

at common law, 26-30.
putting in name of wife, 32-
33, 35-42, 79, 178, 217-
218, 232.

tendency to vest all, in the
women of the State, 39-
41.

of wife lost to husband by
abandonment or deser-
tion, 41.

individual or community
rights in, as between hus-
band and wife, 102-105.
more equitable system in re-
lation to, owned by hus-
band and wife might be
established,, 177.
all belonged to husband and
father under ancient Ro-
man law, 189-194.
father has no interest in, of

340 SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

living child, 200, 211,
215.

of child cannot be leased,
sold, nor encumbered by
parent, 216.

small sum belonging to child,

arising in suit, may be

paid to one of its parents,

216.

descent of, on death of child,

217-219.

control of, when owned by
married woman who is a
minor, 219.
father preferred in descent of,

222.

burned down by children, 235.
attacked by children, 235-
236.

Protection, ballot not needed for,
of women, 304-306.

Proverb, 121, 123.

Public policy demands the en-
couragement, not the dis-
couragement of marriage,
163-166.

Pursuit and possession, relative
pleasures of, 125.

Rabble, the United States said to
be a, 262.

Races, value of the home in con-
flict between great, 288-
289.

Rebekah, 127.

Receiver, appointed for estate of a
married woman who is a
minor, 31-32.

Reconstruction, of society ac-
cording to the views of
the suffragettes, 176-177.
progress of the South since
the days of, should not be
endangered, 304-306, 320-
321.

Remedies, needed to improve the
present condition of
marriage, 174-177.

Return-ticket, if marriage sold
with, 122.

Reuben^ 195.

Revolution, French, partly caused

by women, 130.
men of to:day acting with the
same irresolution as Louis
XVI., 812.

in a woman after marriage,
125.

Reward man has received for

yielding to women's de-
mands, 299.

Rights, the suffragettes on their

way to demand more, 181.

of wife and child at expense

of husband and father,

185-186.

no addition possible to gen-
eral sum of, 253.
of men, under dominion of
women, 274-276, 314-315.
of women contrasted with

privileges, 284-286.
men asked by suffragettes to
give up, for nothing,
318-319.

Roads, husbands and fathers li-
able to be sent to work
in chains on the public,
when they live in cities
of over 15,000, 52-59.
father may be sent to, for not
< supporting child, 202-206.

Rob, wife has the right to, hus-
band in Chicago, 147-148.

Rolling-pin, picture of husband
beaten over the head
with, 165-166.

Romanism, its effect upon the
common law rights of the
husband, 103-104.

Rome, "Society in under the
Caesars," 103-105, 192-
194.

condition of marriage in,
under the empire, 103-
105.

rules of domestic law in,
186-194.

Salary of husband, all claimed by
his wife, 150, 151-152,
153.

of child not ( liable for the
debts of his parents, 215-
216.

Sale, of land belonging to child,
father cannot make, 216.

Samson in prison, a type of men
under woman's rule, 315-
316.

Scott, quoted in regard to disposi-
tion of women, 289.

Selden quoted, 119, 120-121.

Seneca, consolation for mother
who had lost her only
son, 105.

Seriousness of life, tired man un-
fit to consider, according
to a suffragette, 293-295.

INDEX

34i

Seventeen, Act intended to pro-
tect children under, 205-
206.

children under, allowed to
commit one crime each,
with more or less im-
punity, 239-250.

Shakespeare quoted, 94, 98, 119,
124.

"She sifted the meal," 40.

Ship of State, what most in
danger from, 252.

Slavery, husbands and fathers re-
duced to, 45, 133-136.
progress of husbands is tow-
ard, and the grave, 304,
308-309.

Sleep, jail the only place a cer-
tain husband could in
peace, 142.

husband made to, with dog,
137-138.

"Society in Rome under the
Caesars," quotations from,
103-105, 192-194.

Socrates quoted, 118.

Solomon quoted, 118.

Son, the word passing out of use,

76.

killed by father, 145.
father killed by, 234.

Sophia, Princess, 129.

South Carolina, no divorce allowed

in, 83, 118.
Sea Bubble, 282.
attentions due to women in

the, 285.

men in, should not follow ex-
ample of those in the
West, 318-322.

Sovereignity, doubtful, disorders
result from, in states and
families, 159-160.

Spanish Inquisition, 129-130.

"Star" boarder, husband converted
into by a certain decree
of divorce, 139-140.

State, rights doctrine, involved in
uniform divorce laws, 116-
118.

laws exclusively regulate the
domestic relations, 160-
163.
marriage indispensable to,

165.

bad policy to our, of the over-
doing of life insurance,
171.

board of Charities and Cor-
rections may take depen-
dent wayward or delin-

quent children from their
parents, 211.

its rights in regard to
children under seven-
teen who have com-
mitted crimes, 243,
244.

authority of, affected, when
parental authority broken
down, 252.

one, should be kept where a
man was the real father
of his children, 265.

interfering in domestic af-
fairs, bad effect of, 267-
268.

no benefit to, by increase of
votes, 277-279.

reserve force in every, 302.

one at least should remain as
a retreat to men afflicted
by woman's suffrage, 319-
322.

St. Bartholomew, massacre of, 130.
Stevenson quoted, 121, 121, 122,

122, 124, 125, 126.
St. Hill quoted, 123.
Stone, wife beats husband in the

head with, 168.
Street, husband arrested by his

wife on, 140-141.

Suffragette, true daughter of the
horseleach, 78.

disturbance of relations be-
tween men and women,
114-115.

their theories as to the recon-
struction of society, 176-
177.

on their way from the card-
party to the Suffrage
meeting, 181.

develops from the "New
Woman," 273-283.

movement hostile to man,
273-276, 280-281.

compared to Delilah, 276.

plan to improve politics by
doubling the number of
voters, 278-279.

supposed case of court com-
posed of, 281.

if demands of, be right, the
race has been wrong, 282-
283.

samples of their argument,
287-289, 289, 290-292,
292-293, 293, 293-295, 296-
299, 304-309.

male, should be distrusted,
295-296.

342

SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

seek to destroy domestic au-
thority, 309-810.

described, 310-311.

why men should oppose, 311-
313.

have brought suit against men,
312-313.

their demands a political ques-
tion of the highest im-
portance, 317-322.
Suicide, not even left to you after
marriage, 125.

of husband rather than pay

alimony, 147.

Suit, for child, brought by next
friend, 215.

against child, defended by
guardian ad lit em, 215.

small sum arising in, belong-
ing to child, may be paid
to one of its parents, 216.

brought by suffragettes to de-
prive men of their birth-
right, 312-313.

Suitable place of abode, husband
must furnish, although
driven from home, 59-64.
Summer vacations, husbands and
fathers deserted during,
167.

deserted houses during^ 179.
Superiority, assumption of, on the

part of women, 132.
Support, indefiniteness of the idea
of, 51-52.

of insane wife to be at hus-
band's expense to the re-
lief of her estate, 69.

husband's estate liable for
wife's, when he is con-
fined in the penitentiary,
as if he were dead, 69.

diamonds held necessary part
of, in Indiana, 70-72.

women have always managed
to make men, them, 123-
124.

wife must be supported, even
if she be rich and her
husband poor, 135.

punishment proposed for hus-
bands who desert or fail
to, their families, 153-154.
Suttee, 171-172, 174-175.
Swift quoted, 119, 122.
Taming of the Shrew, quotation

from, 98.

Target, husband a, for the legis-
lature to shoot at, 162-
163.
Tarpeia, 128.

Taxation without representation,
fallacious argument of the
suffragettes, 292-293.

Taxes, on unmarried men pro-
posed, 75.

woman's disregard to the pay-
ment of, 302-303.

Temperance movement and wom-
an's suffrage, 306-309.

Texas, common law rules still in
force in, 30.

Thackeray quoted, 123.

Thales quoted, 119.

Theatre, ushers discharged from,
to make room for girls,
178.
women who were going to the

matinee, 180-181.
one of the millstones grinding
husbands and fathers to
pieces, 255-259.
hostile to fathers, 255-257.

"They saw two men by the road
side sit," 122.

"Times have changed for him who
marries," 124.

Tongue, terrors of a woman's, 121.

Too much women, 251-252.

Tragedy, cause of some of the
domestic tragedies, 50-51.
resulting from the opposition
of women to men, the
theme of this work, 303-
304.

Trains, child amuses himself try-
ing to wreck, 237-238.

Trollope quoted, 124.

Tulip craze, 282.

Tyranny, extension of the doc-
trine of contempt of
court lead.s to, 243.

Uniform laws, on divorce not de-
sirable, 116-118.
movement for, bad policy for
Virginia, 117.

United States, what is the matter

with the, 251-252.
ship of State in danger of

being wrecked, 252.
said to be a rabble, 262.

Unworthy parents, even these en-
titled to their children,
266-268.

Vacations, husbands and fathers
deserted during summer,
167.

Victoria, her view of the wife's
duty to obey, 99.

Violence and bloodshed in thfl
fami'v circle, 159,

INDEX

343

Virginia, traditions violated by re-
cent legislation, 223.

no need to adopt laws of other
states in regard to the
domestic relations, 260-
262.

thought has favored the privi-
leges and attentions due
to women, 285-286.

in history, 287-288.

present condition of, 307.

men of, able to attend to its
affairs, 314-321.

should set an example to
others by firmly opposing
woman's suffrage, 316-322.

should afford a retreat for
men afflicted with woman's
suffrage, 321-322.

Virtues, certain, which are not en-
couraged by recent legis-
lation, 89-90.

Vote, whether women would, if
they had the right, 289-
290.

not needed for protection of

women, 304-306.

Voters, no benefit to the State by
increasing number of, 277.

standard of, would not be im-
proved by adding women,
314-315.

for women, what it may in-
volve, 280-281.

some of the lesser objections

to, 302-303.

Vulgarization of marriage, 90-91.
Wedding-rings, desired by women
for married men, 75.

the torments which lie in, 123.
Weller, views of Mr., on matri-
mony, 125, 125-126.
Western, States demoralizing the
country by their laws,
162, 288, 318-319.

legislative ideas of Northern
and, States, 260.

Virginia has nothing to learn
from, in regard to the
domestic relations, 260-
262.

individualism, 262.

arguments of men from,
States having adopted
woman's suffrage, unre-
liable, 321-322.

world, acting with irresolution
in the face of a great
danger, 312.
Which one? 160,

Whipping, of children better than
juvenile court, 206.

of children by order of court,

207-208, 228.
White slaves, girls sold by their

mothers as, 131-132.
Why men are not marrying, 50-52,
56-58, 59-64, 75-77, 92-93,
132-136, 159-166, 199, 224-
225, 257-258, 265, 267-
268, 300.

why women are not marrying,

296-299.

Widow, in the "smart" turnout,
179.

who had just collected the life-
insurance, 181.

marriage to a certain kind of,
a cure for the gout, 125-
126.

Wife, divine view of her relation
to her husband. 18-23.

duty of, to obey, 19.

giving of, to the husband, 19.

name of, 20.

dower at common law, 27.

no right to make will at com-
mon law, 28.

had no share of her husband's
personality at common
law, 28.

husband liable for the debts
and torts of, at common
law, 28-29.

could make no contract at
common law, 29.

rights of property under Vir-
ginia statute, 30-34.

on death intestate of, her per-
sonalty passes to her hus-
band, 32.
otherwise as to real estate,

putting property in name of,

32-33, 35-41, 217-218, 232.
can be too loyal to her hus-
band according to the

ideas of the local juvenile

court, 48-50.
duties of, to husband ignored

in recent enactments, 68-

69.
rules of evidence between

husband and, 80-82.
independence of, an unphilo-

spphic scheme of mar-
riage, 91-97.
present position of, in regard

to her husband and her

property, 93-97.
Pittacus, a plague to him, 119.

344

SHALL WOMEN VOTE?

happiness with or without a,
122.

the man who had, and who
had not buried his, 122.

need, of a fire to put, in, 125.

must be supported even if
she be rich and the hus-
band poor, 135.

killed in quarrel as to vho
should get up first, 138.

one who insisted on being
"boss," 145-146.

has right to rob husband in
Chicago, 147-148.

slaughters the family, 148-
149.

claims the whole of her hus-
band's salary, 150, 151-
152, 153.

shot by husband Christmas
day, 155-156.

killed by husband who com-
mits suicide, 156-157.

kills husband, 157.

puts husband in bankruptcy,
157-158.

beats husband in the head
with a stone, 158.

shoots husband, 159.

was not an owned chattel,
175.

honorable position of, for-
merly in Virginia, 175-
176.

guardjan and husband in re-
lation to wife, 224-233.

suffragette argument to have
her supersede her hus-
band, 290-292.

Will, wife had no power to make,
at common law, 28.

infants under eighteen can-
not make, 217.

Women, modification of the rules
of marriage according to
the ideas of, 75.

being ruined by new legisla-
tion, 78, 114-115.

responsible for most divorces,
105-108.

home-wreckers, 105-108.

clinging type of, becoming
rarer, 114-115.

are what men choose to make
them, 114.

approved attitude of, toward
men, 114-115.

Solomon's comments on, 118.

responsible for most lawsuits,
119.

at least one, should be dis-

sected by a man before mar-
riage, 120.
whether one makes a home

comfortable, 121.
terrors of the tongue of, 121.
views in regard to, on the

part of boys and men of

forty, 123.
have always managed to make

men support them, 123-

124.
whether now a blessing to a

man, 125.
revolution in the nature of,

after marriage, 125.
doctrine of the excellence of,

considered, 126-132.
as some have appeared in

history, 126-132. _
assumption of superiority on

the part of, 132.
are losing their accomplish-
ments, 132-133.
what would happen to men if,

allowed to vote, 162-163.
responsible for the lax bring-
ing up of children, 251-

254.

too much, 251-252.
"New Woman" develops into

the suffragette, 273-283.
movement, some of the things

accomplished by, 273-277.
suffrage, attitude of men

towards, 279-280.
and children craze, 282.
attentions they are entitled to

in the South, 285-286.
characterized by Scott, 289.
political matters not properly

within field of work of,

290.
work of, equally as important

as that of man, but on

other lines, 290.
article on why, are not mar-
rying, 296-299.
some special weaknesses of,

302-303.
dignity of life lowered by

ideas of some, 303.
life not worth living under

rule of, 303.
argument of this work based

on strength, not weakness

of, 304.

no need of ballot for protec-
tion of, 304-306.
comparison between danger

from, and negroes voting,
304-306.

INDEX

345

suffrage viewed in relation to
liquor question, 306-309.

elevation of, 309.

addition of, no improvement
in the electorate, 314-315.

suffrage a question of the
highest political impor-
tance, 317-322.

suffrage states, arguments of
men from, not to be re-
lied on, 321-322.

Worship, of ancestors as divini-
ties, 232.

Youth, bad effect of emphasizing,
in the legislation of a
State, 223-254.

14 DAY USE

RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED

LOAN DEPT.

This book is due on the last date stamped below, or

on the date to which renewed.
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall.

4Mv'64SW

25 tg?t;