to include females. This is the first time that discrimination on the basis of sex was written into our Constitution. George Gordon Battle, distinguished constitutional lawyer, submitted a brief to the Senate Judiciary Committee July 11, 1941, in support of the Equal Rights Amendment, and stated, in part: This famous amendment (14th), although its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro, contained no reference to race or color. These provisions were entirely general and unrestricted. Nevertheless, the courts of this country, led by the Supreme Court, whittled away the full force and meaning of the words of this amendment. So far as women were concerned, it was held that the State still had the power to restrict to men the right to vote. . . . In many instances the unjust and discriminatory State statutes were upheld as being within the police power of the State. It soon became evident that the right to redress this injustice against women was not to be found in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to give protection for the alien, the powerful and ruthless corporation, the criminal of the most vicious type and for the Communist who would destroy our Country; but it has never, with one short-lived exception, interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to give protection for half our people, the women. After more than a century of decrees to this effect, it is inconceivable that the Supreme Court will reverse this interpretation. Further the Congressional debates at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment show that the proponents never intended that it should apply to women. We quote from "History of Woman Suffrage" edited by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and Matilda Joslyn Gage, Vol. II, page 93: While the 13th Amendment was pending, Senator Sumner wrote many letters to the officers of the Loyal League, saying, "Send on the petitions; they give me opportunity for speech." "You are doing a noble work.” “I am grateful to your Association for what you have done to arouse the country to insist on the extinction of slavery." And our petitions were sent again and again, 300,000 strong, and months after the measure was carried, they still rolled in from every quarter where the tracts and appeals had been scattered. But when the proposition for the 14th Amendment was pending, and the same women petitioned for their own Civil and political rights, they received no letters of encouragement from Republicans nor Abolitionists; and now came some of the severest trials the women demanding the right of suffrage were ever called on to endure. Though loyal to the Government and the rights of the colored race, they found themselves in antagonism with all with whom they had heretofore sympathized. Though Unionists, Republicans, and Abolitionists, they could not without protest see themselves robbed of their birth-right as citizens of the republic by the proposed amendment. Republicans presented their petitions in a way to destroy their significance, as petitions for "universal suffrage," which to the public meant "manhood suffrage." Abolitionists refused to sign them, saying, "THIS IS THE NEGRO'S HOUR.” To give a few details-in a long line of cases, the Supreme Court has held that many statutes restricting women were not repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. That is the phrase used each time. We mention only a few cases. 1872-The State still had the power to restrict to men the right to practice law. Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. 130. 1874 The State still had the power to restrict to men the right to vote. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162. 1880-West Virginia law barring Negroes from jury service violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also stated that it is not unconstitutional to bar women from jury service. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303. 1893-The State still had the power to restrict to men the right to practice law. In re Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116. 1908 The State still had the power to regulate and limit the hours of labor for women. Mueller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412. 1923-A minimum wage law for the District of Columbia was found to be an unwarranted abridgment of the liberty of contract. This is the only case in which the Supreme Court found protection for women; and it was expressly repudiated by the West Coast case. Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525. 51-146-70- -27 1931-The trial of a woman by a jury drawn from lists from which women were excluded held not to deny to the woman equal protection of the laws within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Commonwealth v. Welosky, 276 Mass. 398. The Supreme Court denied certiorari, 284 U.S. 684 (1932). 1937-Legislation providing for the establishment of minimum wages for women and minors does not constitute an arbitrary discrimination because it does not extend to men. This decision expressly reversed the decision in the Adkins case. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379. 1958-Exclusion of women from Texas A. & M. College is not in violation of the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities clause in the amendment, nor a violation of both sections 3 and 19 of article I of the Constitution of Texas. Heaton v. Bristol, 317 S.W. Reporter 2d 86. The Supreme Court denied certiorari April 20, 1959, and petition for rehearing was denied May 18, 1959. 1958--The denial of the services of an attorney before trial of a woman held on suspicion of murder was not prejudicial! The case involved a woman who was reported to have murdered her husband while mentally deranged because of his brutality. Ashdown v. Utah, 357 U.S. 426. Contrast this shocking decision with that in the Escobedo case, in which the conviction of a vicious murderer was overturned because he did not have an attorney when he made his confession. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964). 1960-Allred v. Heaton, 336 S.W. 2d 251. This is the companion case to Heaton v. Bristol, above. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. By its refusal to review these two Texas cases, it then became constitutional to bar women from state colleges and universities. The ramifications are frightening-for if it is constitutional to bar women from tax-supported colleges, then it would be constitutional to bar them from public high schools, and even primary schools. There would be nothing to prevent such action on the part of the states. All these schools are supported by taxation; and women pay their just share of the taxes. Women are being kept out of tax-supported colleges all over the Land. Quota systems are used to exclude women. The college involved in these two cases is Texas A. & M., one of the original Land Grant Colleges and supported by taxation. There are many courses of study which are given at no other college in Texas-agriculture. floriculture, veterinary sciences, etc. By denying the women of Texas the right to attend Texas A. & M., the courts are denying the women the right to enter their chosen profession. This is one of our most precious rights. 1961-A State jury selection law which differentiates between men and women by giving women an absolute exemption based solely on sex, and permits women to claim such exemption by the less onerous procedure of refusing to register for jury duty is based upon a reasonable classification. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57. It is important to note that this decision cited Strauder v. West Virginia. above. These cases show that the interpretation remains the same right down to the present time. Not one of the recent labor cases has yet reached the point of a decision by the Supreme Court. The Constitution makes it clear that the power to say the final word as to the validity of a statute assailed as being unconstitutional was given to the Supreme Court. As you well know, there is no appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court. Fifty years after the extension of the vote to Negroes by the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment, the grant of the Franchise was given to women by the Nineteenth Amendment. The only right which women have which is guaranteed by the Constitution and enforceable by the Supreme Court is the right to vote and hold office, as granted by the Suffrage Amendment; and that is ALL we have. This was tersely stated by the late Justice Robert Jackson in Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261 (1947) : It would, in the light of this history, take something more than a judicial interpretation to spell out of the Constitution a command to set aside verdicts rendered by juries unleavened by feminine influence. The contention that women should be on the jury is not based on the Constitution, it is based on a changing view of the rights and responsibilities of women in our public life, which has progressed in all phases of life, including jury duty, but has achieved constitutional compulsion on the States only in the grant of the franchise by the 19th Amendment. Many distinguished Senators have supported the Amendment. Favorable Reports from the Senate Judiciary Committee were presented by: Senator James A. Hughes, Del. (D) May 11, 1942. Senator James O. Eastland, Miss. (D) September 28, 1962. No unfavorable Report has ever been made to the Senate or the House. In the Report presented by Senator Hatch, listed above, he quotes from a recent survey of some of the great documents of human freedom in England and the United States, by a distinguished jurist, William Draper Lewis, director of the American Law Institute and Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. This survey begins with Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights, and ends as follows: It is a comment on the immaturity of civilization that the recognition of woman's political equality with man did not come in the United States until 1920. The fight to gain for her full legal recognition as a human being has neared its culmination in the presentation to Congress of the equal-rights amendment. One further point: the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, adopted June 26, 1945 and ratified by the United States August 8, 1945, states: WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small... As the world's greatest democracy, we do not yet have in our own Constitution a guaranty of equal rights for men and women. This is what we are demanding in our efforts for the passage of the pending Equal Rights for Men and Women Amendment. Thank you. STATEMENT OF MRS. EARLE A. BROWN, PRESIDENT, GENERAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS IN SUPPORT OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Mrs. Earle A. Brown, PresiIdent of the General Federation of Women's Clubs-which is, as some of you may know, the largest organization of women in the world. Its membership of 800,000 women in 14,500 clubs here in the United States includes many who hold full-time jobs as well as being homemakers and parents; a great number are women under thirty-five years of age. It is on behalf of all of them that I urge you most respectfully to support the Equal Rights Amendment as passed by the House, without any change in wording whatsoever. This is the same wording as S. J. Res. 61 which has been sponsored by over two-thirds of the members of the Senate. It was in 1944 that the General Federation of Women's Clubs adopted a resolution entitled "Equal Rights and Responsibilities for Women". It is a very brief resolution which states: "Whereas, The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee equality of status for women, except with regard to the right to vote, and will guarantee equality of other rights only when an amendment for the purpose is included therein; therefore "Resolved, That the General Federation of Women's Clubs reaffirms its support of the Equal Rights Amendment which would provide that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." We adopted this resolution because of our awareness of the inequities which are found in our Federal and state statutes. There are many areas of legal in justice which are of particular concern to our membership. Some of these areas, no doubt, will be discussed in testimony of others but in an effort to keep my statement brief, I will mention particularly our concern over married women's property rights. Single women enjoy equality of legal treatment with men in regard to property rights and contract law. When a woman marries, she forfeits such equality in one degree or another in practically every state in the Union. The property rights of married women are fixed by the laws of the states as interpreted by the courts. Those laws fall into two categories: the common-law, patterned after the old English common law, and the community property law which follows the Spanish Code. Under common law principles, each spouse has the right to his or her individual earnings and the property acquired therewith. What of the wife and mother who spends her life at work in the home and never has any outside earnings? No dollar value has ever been placed on her work in the home. All the matrimonial property belongs to the husband, and if he should die without a will, she has only a dower right, a claim to one-third of the property for life. Children or others inheriting part ownership may go to court to evaluate her interest and order sale of the property. Further, since all is legally owned by the husband, estate and inheritance taxes stand to be higher than if each owned one-half, despite statutory marital deduction allowances, thus reducing the net estate to be passed to the survivors. And in event of divorce, the wife must depend upon "settlements" worked out by jousting attorneys, with the husband's attorney working to have as much as possible of her settlement labelled alimony (rather than support) which then becomes wholly taxable to her and deductible by the husband for income tax purposes. In the eight community property states, the principle is that husband and wife each owns an outright one-half of real property, acquired during marriage, even though the wife has no outside earnings. But in most of these jurisdictions, the husband, but not the wife, has sole management rights, exercise of which enables him to create debts against their property (even gambling debts) without knowledge or consent of his wife. Such rights extend to her earnings and to the income from her separate or inherited property in which he has no ownership. The persistence of the organized women of Texas in obtaining support of the State Bar Association, brought change of this law there. The new statute provides that "each spouse shall have sole management, control, and disposition of that community property which he or she would have owned if single" and for joint management of combined property. Such provision is similar to the laws of Norway and Denmark. Sweden and the Federal Republic of Germany have a formula for equitable division of property upon termination of marriage which might well be adopted in our states. For example, upon termination of marriage, there could first be deducted from each spouse's property the debts of that spouse. Inherited or separate property would be excluded from the division. The remaining properties, the marital property, would then be divided equally between husband and wife. Centuries ago, when women had no access to education and no experience in the business world, their need of "protection" from the unscrupulous perhaps justified restriction of their property rights, placed in control of their husbands. But today, we live in a world with 27,000,000 women working outside the home, participating in the affairs of the marketplace, able to read and write and to judge the motives of public trading. The President's Commission on the Status of Women, appointed by President John F. Kennedy, reported to him in October, 1963, stating that one kind of legal disability or another limited the rights of married women in every state. Beginning in 1963, every state set up a State Commission on the Status of Women. Their reports contain studies, analyses and review of state laws which provide basic information as to the situation in each state. In 1967, ten state Commissions recommended changes needed to protect the rights of a spouse in the property and earnings of the other. Five recommended needed changes in inheritance laws. One pointed out need for equal rights for husbands by re-establishment of inheritance rights in the wife's estate. Random examples of inequitable laws included: (a) a second wife invested her outside earnings with the husband's in home and property; after 25 years, he died without a will, no children; his long estranged mother became entitled to a large share of the marital property; but if the wife had died first, ALL the property would have gone to the husband; (b) in community property states, court decisions have established that the wife cannot dispose of her half of the property but the husband can dispose of ALL of it; she cannot go into business with her own funds without his permission and signature; he can abandon her for years and return to claim half of whatever she may have acquired in the meantime; she cannot control investments made with income from her separate property; (c) in at least one jurisdiction, the husband is given divorce on grounds of one act of adultery, but this will not suffice for a divorce sought by the wife; and if the husband kills a man "taken in adultery" with his wife, it is justifiable homicide, while in the reverse, the wife is charged with murder. The Florida Supreme Court in 1944 pointed out the absurdity of treating a married woman as legally incompetent in these words: a woman's responsibilities and faculties remain intact from age of maturity until she finds her mate; whereupon, incompetency seizes her and she needs protection in an extreme degree. Upon the advent of widowhood she is reinvested with all her capabilities which had been dormant during her marriage, only to lose them again upon remarriage. Intermittently, she is protected and benefited accordingly as she is married or single." The new 1968 Florida Constitution provides that there shall be no distinction between married men and married women in the holding, disposition, or encumbering of their property. The United Nations report on the Legal Status of Women sets forth two BASIC concepts of matrimonial property: (a) recognition of married women as independent persons before the law; and (b) recognition of the economic partnership involved in marriage and acknowledgement of the financial contribution of the wife who works only in the home. The Citizens Advisory Council on the Status of Women (1963-1968) which succeeded the President's Commission on Status of Women, set up a special Task Force on Family Law, composed of law school professors, outstanding attorneys specializing in family law, sociologists. Many consultations with experts in the field were held. The property rights recommendation of the group, adopted by the Council was as follows: "Marriage as a partnership in which each spouse makes a different but equally important contribution is increasingly recognized as a reality in this country and is already reflected in the laws of some other countries. During marriage, each spouse shoud have a legally defined substantial right in the earnings of the other, in the real and personal property acquired through these earnings, and in their management. Such a right should be legally recognized as surviving the marriage in the event of its termination by divorce, annulment, or death. Appropriate legislation should safeguard either spouse and protect the surviving spouse against improper alienation of property by the other. Surviving children as well should be protected from disinheritance." The question before this Committee today is not whether to initially propose and endorse a Constitutional Amendment which would guarantee equal rights to women but whether to recommend veto of the proposal already overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives. We trust that you will report H. J. Res. 264 favorably without change and recommend its passage to the Senate. Equal justice under law is all we ask. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to express our views. REFERENCES Task Force Report on Family Law and Policy (1968) made to the Citizens Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Report of the Committee on Civil and Political Rights of Women's to President's Commission on Status of Women (1963). "A Matter of Simple Justice"-Task Force on Women's Rights and Responsibilities (April 1970). STATEMENT OF PATRICIA A. SAMUEL, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM, IN SUPPORT OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT Women today are second class citizens. Evidence of the inferior caste to which women are relegated can be seen in the fact that the percentage of men earning $10,000 or more is 20% higher than the percentage of women. Department of Labor satistics show that almost half of all American women are wage-earners, |