Women were given the right to be appointed administrators or executors on the same terms as men. (Special Session, 1921.) Women were given the right to be appointed as notaries public. (Special Session, 1921.)

Women were given the right to act as "witness assisting at public inventories." (Special Session, 1921.)

Women were made "capable of all kinds of engagements and functions." (Special Session, 1921.)

Women were given the right to be made guardians of children on the same terms as men, by will of the surviving parent, or by appointment when the parent dying last leaves no will. (Special Session, 1921.)

Women were given the same right to act as guardian of their grandchildren as possessed by the grandfather. (Special Session, 1921.)

Women were given the right to an equal voice in the sale or mortgage of the family home so that the family home "shall not * * * be validly sold or mortgaged except with the consent of both husband and wife." (Special Session, 1921.)

Women were admitted to membership in the "family meeting" which in Louisiana, passes by law upon matters pertaining to the family. (Special Session, 1921.)

IN MAINE

Women were given the right to jury service. (Regular Session, 1921.)

IN MARYLAND

Women were given the right to hold various public offices previously confined to men. (Regular Session, 1922.)

IN MASSACHUSETTS

Mothers were given equal rights with fathers in appointing a guardian for their children by will. (Regular Session, 1922.) IN MISSISSIPPI

Mothers were given equal rights with fathers to the care and custody of their children and to the services and earnings of their children. (Regular Session, 1922.)

IN NEW YORK

Mothers were given equal right with fathers to custody of a child when the parents are living apart without divorce. (Regular Session, 1923.)

Girls were given the same protection as boys with respect to capacity to make wills of personal estate. (Regular Session, 1923.)

Mothers were given equal right with fathers to inherit real estate from their deceased child. (Regular Session, 1923.)

Women were given the right to inherit equally with men relatives in equal degree of kin in cases not otherwise provided for by statute. (Regular Session, 1923.)

IN OHIO

Mothers were made joint guardians with fathers of minor children and given equal right to the children's services and earnings. (Regular Session, 1923.)

Married women were given the same right to choice of a voting residence that married men have. (Regular Session, 1923.) Mother's consent as well as father's consent to marriage of minor child made necessary. (Regular Session, 1923.)

Women as well as men were made of age at 21. (Regular Session, 1923.)

IN OKLAHOMA

Women were given the right to hold all State elective offices, but this measure must be ratified by a vote of all the people before it becomes a law. (Regular Session, 1923.)

IN PENNSYLVANIA

Married women were given the right to choose their own domicile for purpose of voting or holding offices. (Regular Session, 1923.)

Married women were given the right to divorce on grounds more nearly equal to those of husbands. (Regular Session, 1923.) Wives were given the same right as husbands to acquire settlement for poor relief. (Regular Session, 1923.)

IN VIRGINIA

Women were given the right after marriage to choose their own residence for voting purposes. (Regular Session, 1922.)

Women were given equal inheritance rights with men. (Regular Session, 1922.)

Women were given a claim upon the estate of a deceased husband equal to the claim of a husband upon that of his deceased wife. (Regular Session, 1922.)

Women were given the same rights as men with regard to administration of estates. (Regular Session, 1922.)

"ETERNAL VIGILANCE IS THE PRICE OF EQUALITY”

In a letter with the above summary, Mrs. Matthews said:

In reply to your telegram to Miss Paul, I am enclosing a statement of equal rights secured in other States.

The Wisconsin act covers more ground than any of the acts secured in the other States; however, it does not guarantee complete legal equality.

The 1923 legislature of Wisconsin by Chapter 150 amended the adoption statutes and in it the legislature continues the policy of the old statutes in recognizing the mother of an illegitimate child as its one and only parent and practically overlooking the father.

In 1921 the legislature amended the dower and curtesy laws before it passed the Equal Rights Law but by provision in the dower and courtesy amendments said amendments became effective in August, 1921. Therefore the dower and courtesy amendments became effective after the Equal Rights Law. Under the curtesy law the widower has a greater share in his deceased wife's lands than the widow has in her deceased husband's lands, but the widower's rights may be defeated in several instances where the widow's rights are not subject to defeat and hence it is probable thaf the widow has the advantage.

According to information which our Legislative Secretary has obtained, a bill was introduced at the 1923 session of the legislature to amend Section 13.14 of the Wisconsin statutes which provides that male persons only shall be employed by the legislature so as to permit the employment of women as well as men, but the bill did not become a law. Of course you remember that the Wisconsin Attorney General ruled that the Equal Rights law, because of its special protective clause, does not affect Section 13.14.

From Miss Barry to whom you referred my letter, I understand that the Milwaukee School Board recently adopted a rule which discriminates against women and which reads as follows: "A woman teacher upon becoming married shall within two weeks thereafter report said fact to the superintendent and thereafter she shall be known by her married name and use the same in connection with her school service. Failure to do so shall result in a deduction of 10 per cent per month from her salary for each month or any portion thereof said failure to report shall have continued." (Rule 28.)

It seems to be true, as Miss Ada James recently observed, that "eternal vigilance is the price of equality"-even after it has been written into the law. In this connection, and as bearing upon Mrs. Matthews' citation of the adverse opinion by

Attorney General Ekern affecting employment of women by the Wisconsin legislature, the following correspondence is enlightening:

Hon. John Callahan,

Superintendent of Public Instruction,

Capitol.

Dear Sir:

October 24, 1923.

I have just received a communication stating that according to letters received from Madison, women are barred from taking the civil service examination for the position of supervisor of school libraries.

I am not familiar with the method which obtains for the examination, but I assumed at the time the Equal Rights Law was passed in 1921 that it broke down all barriers against women and amended, by implication, every general and special law where sex qualifications excluded women, so that they might have the opportunity of equal privileges before the law with men, with the special exceptions set forth in the law.

That is now my personal interpretation, and if instructions have gone out barring women from taking the examination for the position of supervisor of school libraries, I think the matter ought to be reconsidered, in the light of the Equal Rights Law.

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission. Yours very truly,

The matter of this examination to which you refer has been corrected so that I think it will satisfy the women. It was arranged for while I was away and as we had two vacancies to fill and expected to appoint a woman to the other position it was assumed that we would like to appoint a man to this one.

However, when it was taken up with me I had no objection to opening up the examination to both men and women.

The Milwaukee School Board seems likely to be the last group of public officials in Wisconsin to concede that the State legislature meant what it said when it enacted the Equal Rights Law. Adopting the rule, quoted above by Mrs. Matthews, the Board ignored not only the Equal Rights Law but a court de

cision under that law, in which the Board was directed to reemploy a teacher whom it had dismissed for failure to report her marriage, and to pay her salary for the period of her enforced unemployment. In its earlier rule, the Board assumed right to dismiss a woman teacher outright for failure to report her marriage. In the new rule, cited amove, the Board reduces its assumption 90 per cent, claiming only the right to cut the offending teacher's pay 10 per cent. It seems certain that the first woman teacher thus unfairly and unlawfully penalized by this obdurate, reactionary and apparently unteachable body, will need only to appeal to the courts to obtain prompt and complete redress.