« AnteriorContinuar »
by the American Senate on Thursday last. Bigamy in future will be punished with a fine of five hundred dollars and five years' imprison. ment, and those who contract polygamous marriages will be deprived of all rights of citizenship. It is feared that this new law will be inoperative so far as stamping out the system of Mormonism is concerned. Only eight per cent. of the Mormon population are actual polygamists, and it is only this small minority that will be affected by the new law. They will be disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding office, but the bulk of the Mormon population will still rule the affairs of Utah under the control of their disfranchised brethren, whose influence would be increased, rather than diminished, by their supposed suffering for the common faith. If the law, however, is rigorously applied, the effect must be the extirpation ultimately not of Mormonism, but of the system of polygamy with which it is linked. This Bill has the advantage, morcover, of being fair towards men and women. Hitherto proposals to disfranchise the women and to deprive them of other legal rights have been from time to time brought forward, as if they alone were to blame for the system.
The Misses KOLLOCK are four typical western girls. The family of W. E. and A. M. Kollock, of Madison, Wis., consists of seven members, four of whom are sisters. Of these, Dr. Mary Kollock Bennett, the eldest, graduated at the Woman's Medical College of Chicago, and for many years has been practising successfully in that city. The next, Dr. Harriet Kollock, graduated in the medical department at Ann Arbor, Michigan, nine years ago, since which time she has been eminently successful in her professional work. The
ird, Rev. Florence Kollock, graduated at Canton Theological College some years since, and is now doing a good work as pastor in a beautiful church, built for her by her parish during the last two years, at Englewood, a fine suburban town of Chicago. Dr. Jennie C. Kollock, the youngest sister, graduated in the dental department at Ann Arbor, Michigan, last March, together with a class of thirtysix gentlemen, she being the only lady, and passing the highest examination of any in the
class. She is now establishing herself saccessfully as a dental practitioner in Chicago.
WOMEN IN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.— The Southern Churchman, Richmond, says: “Bishop Whipple has in an extreme case deemed it justifiable to allow women to officiate (1 Cor. xiv. 35).” The Living Church says: “The few church people at Glencoe have not the means to support a clergyman. For the present, the Bishop will arrange with the nearest clergyman to hold one Sunday service a month. As no man was found to take the place of lay-reader, the Bishop announced his intention of licensing two ladies, one of them the widow of the first missionery, to read the service and a sermon, in connection with the Sunday school.”
The public schools of Boston employ 1,276 teachers, of whom 198 are men and 1,078 are women.
Miss Robinson's Right TO PRACTISE LAW.-Lest the impression be made that the opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Court positively preveuts Miss Lelia J. Robinson from practising Law, it is proper to state that since the decision of the Court was made known, two months ago, the lady has been in good practice at her office in Pemberton Square, Boston. The decision does not affect her legal right to practise her profession out of court, it only compels her to put her court business in the hands of an attorney, which she does, after careful preparation by herself. Miss Robinson has met with success thus far, and the coming Legislature may enable her to do better.
Miss KATE KANE, of Milwaukee, Michigan, was admitted to practice in the Supreme Court at Madison, on the 15th inst. Miss Kane is the second lady lawyer ever admitted to practice in that court, the first having been Miss Lavinia Goodell, who was admitted in June, 1879. The Milwaukee Republican says no question of law was raised in the case. Miss Kane was admitted on her application.
The daughter of the wealthiest banker in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who was graduated from Vassar three
years ago, has been the cashier of her father's bank ever since. Miss Canfield, of Manistee, Michigan, coming from Vassar two years since, found mere society life irksome, begged some regular occupation, and was taken by her sensible father as bookkeeper into his office, a position of no slight responsibility in such an office as Mr. Canfield's, the owner of the largest tug line on the lakes. Still another Vassar graduate is doing a successful business in an insurance office at Milwaukee.
The alleged decree excluding women from public offices will displace women from the post-offices of Richmond, Va., and Louisville, Ky., who fill these positions so acceptably that no ground of removal can be found except their sex. It will displace hundreds of widows, to make places for office hunters. This infamous order will strike Miss Sweet, pension agent of Chicago, who has filled the position with great ability for many years. But it will serve a purpose in showing the uneven chance a woman has for place and position, just because of her disfranchisement.
INDIA. BOMBAY.-Of the 1,422 candidates who recently presented them selves for the Matriculation Examination of the Bombay University, 351 passed. Among the candidates were eleven young ladies, of whom seven were successful. Three of these were from Bombay and four from Poona, among whom was Miss Lena Sorabjee.
CALCUTTA.-In the recent Matriculation Examination of the Calcutta University, six Bengali ladies were among the successful candidates.. Kumasi Abala Das and Kumudini Kastogiri (Bethune School), Virginia Mary Mittra (Cawnpore Girls' School), and Kumari Nirmalabala Mukhopadhya (Free Church Normal School), in the 2nd division ; Kumari Priatama Dutt (Upper Christian School) and Kumari Bidhunsuki Bose (Dehra Mission Girls' School) in the 3rd division. Two other ladies, Miss P. Johnstone (Allahabad) and Miss L. H. Smith (Miss Arrakiel's School) passed in the 2nd division. Miss Ellen d'Abreu (Bethune School) passed in the First Arts Examination in the 2nd division. A scholarship of the first grade has been assigned to her.—Indian Association Journal,
ENGLISH WOMAN'S REVIEW.
No. CVIII.-APRIL 15TH, 1882.
ART. I.-MAGNANIMITY. THE “artificial” lion, as Mr. Phil Robinson so wittily calls him in his “Noah's Ark,” is reputed to be a magnanimous beast. His magnanimity is shown among other instances in the old fable of the division of his spoils after hunting. He orders the bear to divide the prey~ the bear does so in three equal portions and is immediately torn to pieces by the lion; the fox assigns nearly the whole to the lion, keeping only a few wretched morsels for himself. “How did you learn to divide so fairly? " asked the lion. “From the bear, your Majesty.
The same leonine magnanimity meets us at every turn in the ordinary dealings of men with women. It has become the fashion, even if we attribute it to no higher motive, for the majority of educated men to be kind to women. They give them, in most cases, whatever they think will be good for them, educate them according to the standard which they individually hold of what is suitable to make their womankind nice companions for themselves, allow them a reasonable amount of liberty, and look after, and sometimes mismanage, their business concerns for them. But all this kindness and indulgence is based on the assumption that men ought to be the disposers and arbitrators of the destiny of women, the Jupiter Tonans, whose thunderbolts are to have all the force of destiny. The authority which nature has placed in the hands of parents for the guidance of their infant children, custom has attributed to men for the control of women. Just as an arbitrary government appropriates the funds of its tributary nations, and then "gives” back or doles out a portion of what it has appropriated, with a strong sense of its own magnanimity, so men“ give” to women whatever they think is good and fitting for them, but not one man in a thousand comprehends that this generosity is only a small part of what justice demands; and that women would be much better off if petted a little less, and let alone a little more.
If we listen to any debating society of men only, from the High Court of Parliament down to the most insignificant students' discussion club, we find the same magnanimous tone of generosity assumed, the same entire want of perception that women have equal rights to self-management and self-development as themselves. Parliament, for instance, has to decide whether a bill (say a Married Women's Property Bill) is to be passed. "Women would mismanage their property," says one, “let them have the income but not the capital." "Women don't need much money," says another, “their husbands always give them an allowance.” “Conjugal happiness will be impaired,” says a third, “if a woman becomes too independent,” or else—“ her children will suffer ; or else—“if she has money under her own control she will be tempted to leave her husband if he has treated her badly. There is never, apparently, a thought that a woman's property is, by right, as much absolutely her own, as a man's is absolutely his : that if she is foolish or wasteful, or lavish with it, her husband has only the same claim to advise or interfere, as she has to advise or interfere with him; that there is no common sense or justice in the theory that marriage should impose disabilities or penalties upon her, without similar penalties or disabilities upon him. It is the same with regard to the vote. Many even of the men who are in favour of it look upon it as a concession, a grant, made partly because women are suffering from the want of it, partly because they are wearied with our long
woman s Review
April 15th, 1882. importunity. They will generously make a concession to us, but they do not consider that by the concession they simply cease to withhold arbitrarily a right to which women have as much moral claim as themselves. It is a favour to be given, not a wrong to be removed.
Take, again, the question of medical or legal education. One man cannot bear the idea of his daughter or sister going through the anatomical or pathological curriculum (like Sir William Jenner, he would rather see her laid in her coffin) and therefore he will do all in his power to prevent those women who do want to study, and whose fathers and brothers presumably have not interfered, from having a fair chance: or he thinks that women's physical strength is so much less, and their mental faculties so undeveloped that they would be immediately beaten in the race, and therefore they are not to have leave to start, and if they persist in trying they shall be heavily handicapped. Another objects to women studying and practising law; he would be sorry to see a woman grow callous and hard-hearted by having to examine a respondent and co-respondent in a divorce case: or he does not think the “keen susceptibilities and vivid imagination of the sex” would qualify them to succeed, and therefore they should be rigorously shut out from making the attempt. Sometimes the argument is more naïve and honest, “Our professions are overcrowded as it is, and we will not have women in still further to lessen the fees;” just as the Coventry silk dyers struck because " they meant to do away with female labour and if it took them half their wages they should stick to it.” It never seems to enter the heads of these “magnanimous” monopolists that women have a right to an equal share not only of labour but of the rewards of labour: that they have a right to do what they like with their property, a right to control their own time; a right to be educated in the best way they can; and that the world's opportunities and rewards and privileges do not belong to man, who may lawfully keep the lion's share and hand over just as much or as little as he sees fit to the woman, who is to accept her small share thankfully, and be very much obliged for his generosity in allowing her any part of what she might justly claim as her own,