The following article from the pen of Harriette M. Johnston-Wood, of the New York bar, appeared in _Harper’s Weekly_ in the issue of September 24, 1910; there is much in it which should appeal to the sense of justice and manhood of the husbands, brothers and sons of our country. The barbaric treatment of women with reference to property rights should no longer find a place in the laws of a country which boasts of its enlightenment and freedom as does the United States. It is gratifying to record that a more liberal policy is fast being adopted by the law-making bodies of our States. Our author says: “It has been our custom for a number of years to pass our summer vacation on the banks of Lake Seneca, where one of us was born. Here our paternal grandparents came when the country was yet a wilderness, and here they lived and died. Their wedding journey from Rensselaerwick was made in a covered wagon, in which they brought their worldly possessions, some chairs, a table, a bed, a stove, some dishes and cooking utensils. A half-dozen sheep and a cow brought up the rear of this caravan. Here they cleared the ground and built a house. Grandmother dyed and carded and spun into yarn and wove into cloth the wool from the sheep, from which she knitted the socks and mittens and made the clothing. From the flax which grew wild thereabouts she made the household linen. No small tasks were these when eventually nine children came to demand care and protection. Once a year a perambulating shoemaker came through the country, and then this small army was shod, with boots and shoes in reserve sufficient to last until his return. By and by a frame house was built, a luxury in those days; property was accumulated. “To whom did it belong? “In justice and equity it belonged to both parents. Each had borne the burden; each should share in the reward. But the law said no. The wife’s services belong to the husband, and their joint earnings belong to him, only the husband must support the wife. The wife owned nothing. Truly a munificent compensation for fifty years of service such as this! “Did grandfather support grandmother? Were grandmother’s services less valuable than grandfather’s? By what righteous authority did everything belong to grandfather?--he being allowed to give or will away everything, except the use of one-third of the real estate, which grandmother might have after his death, but for her lifetime only. It was barely possible that grandmother might have liked to give or will something to her children on her own account. When she had earned it, by years of toil as hard as his, why should she not have been allowed to gratify this altogether worthy ambition?