In the spring of 1854 Miss Anthony and Ernestine Rose presented a petition to the New York Legislature, and the Albany "Argus," of March 4, published a résumé of their appeal. The demands were: That husband and wife should be tenants in common of property, without survivorship, but with a partition on the death of one; that a wife should be competent to discharge trusts and powers the same as a single woman; that the statute in respect to a married woman's property be changed so that her property could descend as though she had been unmarried; that married women should be entitled to execute letters testamentary, and of administration; that married women should have power to make contracts and transact business as though unmarried; that they should be entitled to their own earnings, subject to their proportional liability for support of children; that post-nuptial acquisitions should belong equally to husband and wife; that married women should stand on the same footing as single women, as parties or witnesses in legal proceedings; that they should be sole guardians of the minor children; that the homestead should be inviolable and inalienable for widows and children; that the laws in relation to divorce should be revised, and drunkenness made cause for absolute divorce; that better care should be taken of single women's property, that their rights might not be lost through ignorance; that the preference of males in the descent of real estate should be abolished; that women should exercise the right of suffrage, and be eligible to all offices, occupations, and professions, and to act as jurors; that courts of conciliation should be organized as peacemakers; that a law should be enacted extending the masculine designation in all statutes of the State to females. I cannot fully understand Miss Anthony's position; but in some notable particulars, not her laws but better ones are in force. When Miss Anthony wrote to inquire who was responsible for repealing an act of 1860 for which she had worked with her well-known zeal, Judge Charles J. Folger replied, in part: "I think--with deference I say it--that you are not strictly accurate in calling the legislation of 1862 a repealing one. In but one thing did it repeal, in the sense of taking away right or power or privilege or freedom that the Act of 1860 gave. On the contrary, in some respects it gave more or greater."