Women In Michigan

he Detroit Pont has the followiug in regard to the coinparative rights of property of men and wouien in Michigan : A certain woman owned considerable property in her own right. Her husband owned nothing. She died ; and by her will ieft all the property to a child, giving her husband nothing, not even a dower right in one-third. Consequently this victim of misplaced confidence had to go to work and earn his own living - a thing he wasn't accustomed to, and in which he didn't succed worth a cent. Now was uot this husband aud father "degraded" in the eyes of his children and of the law, when any statute could be found to enforce and justify the provisión that, in place of one half the property, he should receive none at all P The law of Michigan gives woman the sole right to her own property ; and, besides, the right to a dower in her husband's property. But it gives a husband no right at all in the wife's property. The husband cannot soll his own property, acquired before marriage, without his wife's consent. She can sell her own property, even if acquired after marriage, without asking his consent. She can prevent his selling his property ; he canuot interfere with hers. He must support her and pay her debts. She, though rich, is not bound to aid him in the least if he is poor. Which is " degraded" by these unequal la ws? And what has the voting of women to do with the matter 'i There are others besides Mrs.Stanton who may learn something by a careful study of the dictionary and of the statutes of Michigan, if they do not consider such study "degrading."