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- 
 
3 o 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 wives 5 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. 
 
 a Some 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, u that 
 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: 
 
 u At 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. 
 
 u ln 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. 
 
 U X. 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. 
 
 u The 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." 
 
 U A. B. alleges that her husband, B., abused her 
 and failed to support her. They were married 
 September 2, 1898, and separated March 23, 
 
 i8 99 ." 
 
 "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." 
 
 U X. 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, an d separated February 10, 
 1903. She asks for the restoration of he* 
 maiden name, C." 
 
 U X. 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. 
 
 u Mrs. 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, u Be 
 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 : u The 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." 
 
 u Two 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." u To 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. 
 u Ho ! 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 
 
i2 4 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- 
 
i 3 4 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. 
 
i 4 4 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 
 
i 5 4 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: U A 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 
 
 u The 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 9 o 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 
 
i 9 4 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 u be 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 
 
2i 4 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 
 
2 3 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 
 first 1 " 
 
 "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/ 
 
2 3 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: 
 
 u Be 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 
 
2 4 o 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 u been 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 
 
2 5 o 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- 
 
2 8o 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 
 
2 9 o 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 
 
3 o8 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 
 
3 io 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 
 
3 i2 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 
 
3 i 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. 
 
 U A 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 ;