The "British Medical Journal" was lately reported to have said that more
English women seek for admission to the bar than for entrance into
medical practice. If this be true, it is in marked contrast to the state
of things in this country. Some women have studied law here; many have
written in lawyers' offices; but, so far as I know, not one has desired
to be admitted to the bar: and, in England itself, so far as I know,
Miss Shedden remains the single example of a woman pleading in a court
of law.
The number of laws passed the last six years, affecting the condition of
women, has been very small.
The New-York Assembly in February, 1865, passed a law putting the legal
evidence of a married woman on the same basis as if she were a _feme
sole_. The Massachusetts Legislature have legalized marriage ceremonies
performed by an ordained woman; and in January, 1866, Mr. Peckham, of
Worcester, moved for a joint special committee "to consider in what way
a more just and equal compensation shall be awarded to female labor." On
the 4th of April, just past, Samuel E. Sewall and others petitioned for
leave to appoint women on school committees. It is difficult to
conceive on what ground such petitioners had leave to withdraw. These
things are only valuable as indicating that public attention is still
alive.
In Richmond, Va., recently, a charge of stealing was sustained against a
woman, who was afterwards acquitted, by appeal, on the ground that no
married woman could own her own clothing, and the consequent flaw in the
indictment. In consequence, a bill to secure the rights of property to a
married woman, as if she were a _feme sole_, has been offered in the
House, to the horror of members who gravely assert that there can be no
marriages, if a man does not own his wife's wardrobe!
In Missouri, the new Constitution confers on women the right to make a
will; and the Legislature is considering the subject of introducing
women to the State University.
In England, a curious decision has recently been made, in the case of a
clergyman, of the Church of England, who left his children to the
guardianship of his wife, without expressing any opinion as to their
religious education. Joint guardian with the wife was a brother
clergyman, who brings action to have it decided by the Court where the
children shall attend church. The mother, and a son of thirteen, desire
to attend a dissenting chapel; but Sir J. Stuart, Vice-Chancellor,
decided that the _father's_ religious faith must decide the matter for
the children! Such absurdity will do more than any argument to secure
the future freedom of woman. The family history of Madame de Bedout,
recently dead at Paris, furnishes, also, a remarkable illustration of
the absurdity of the old laws.
The will of Francis Jackson, of Boston, has been recently brought before
our courts to obtain instructions as to its construction. Mr. Jackson's
bequest for the purpose of creating an antislavery sentiment has been
sustained; but the decision reads, February, 1867:--
"The gift in the sixth article, to create a trust, unrestricted in
point of time, to secure the passage of laws granting to women
different rights from those belonging to them under the existing
Constitution and laws, does not constitute a legal charity, and is
therefore void, and is remitted to the testator's heirs-at-law."
The gift in question was intended to aid the publication of such books
as the reader now holds in his hand.
A very important convention came together at Leipsic, in September,
1865. One hundred and fifty women assembled, pledged to assert the right
to labor, and to bridge the gulf between the compensations of the two
sexes. Madame Louise Otto Peters opened the conference in an able
speech. She stated that there were five millions of women in Germany,
who could each earn, if allowed, three thalers a week. A thousand women
might find employment as chemists, on salaries of one hundred and fifty
thalers a year, exclusive of board and lodging. Another thousand might
be employed as boot-closers. The foundation of industrial and
commercial schools was urged. The weak point of the speech, as reported,
appeared to be, that it took no cognizance of the fact, that an influx
of five millions of laborers must necessarily lower the current rate of
wages she proposed. I mention this convention in a legal connection,
believing that it was intended to remove some local legal barriers.
A petition from sixty women of Potter County, Penn., has just been
presented to the Legislature of that State, praying for the passage of
an act to enable widows, on the death of a husband, to control the
property acquired by joint labor, in the same manner as the husband does
on the death of the wife.
When Freeman Clarke was Comptroller of the United-States Currency, he
decided that a woman, not being a _citizen_, could not be a bank
director. I consider this logical and satisfactory. I wish more
decisions of this kind could be made. If the position that woman is not
a citizen were pushed to its extreme, it would become untenable, her
property could not be taxed, and the necessary remedy would be applied.
One bank remonstrated against the comptroller's decision, desiring to
retain the services of women "hitherto satisfactory." I see, by a
Washington paper, that another national bank desires leave to diminish
the number of its directors; so many of its shares being held by women,
that nine men could not be found to fill the office.
Now, let some bright women buy up, through a broker, all the shares of
such a bank, elect their own president and directors, and see what the
Government can do. The absurdity of such a position, practically, is
evident to all who know how business is done in our country towns.