ored voters in the State
of New York, another step of retrogressive legislation was taken
against woman, in the repeal of section nine[177] of the Act of 1860,
re-enacting the spirit and letter of the old common law, which holds
that the children born in legal wedlock belong to the father alone.
Had woman held the ballot--that weapon of protection--in her hand to
punish legislators, by withholding her vote from those thus derelict
to duty, no repeal of the law of 1860 could have possibly taken place.

ALBANY, _April 8, 1881_.

DEAR MISS ANTHONY:--Your esteemed favor of the 6th duly received.

The Statute of 1862, Laws of 1862, chapter 90, page 157, repealed
the grandest and crowning section of the Statute of 1860, viz:
Sections 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11, copies of which sections I
herewith inclose you. Had these sections remained, wives in this
State would have possessed equal rights with their husbands, save
simply the right of voting. It was a great mistake and wrong to
repeal them. Had I been a member of the Senate at that time, as I
was not, I don't think it would have been done.

I do not know who was the author of the repeal bill, nor did I
know of its existence until I saw it in the statute-book. I think
Judge Charles J. Folger, now Chief-Justice of the Court of
Appeals, was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the
bill of 1862 must therefore have passed through the hands of that
Committee, in which it originated, or through which it was
reported, and by the influence of which it must have been
adopted.

Strange that you women, so watchful and so regardful of your
rights, should have allowed the repeal of those important
sections, without strenuous opposition.

Very sincerely yours,
ANDREW J. COLVIN.

We were busily engaged rolling up petitions for the Thirteenth
Amendment to the Federal Constitution, our hearts and hands full of
work for the Government in the midst of the war, supposing all was
safe at Albany. But how comes it that the author of the bill of 1860,
residing at the capital, never heard of its repeal? If the bill was so
slyly passed that Mr. Colvin himself did not know of it until he saw
it in the statute-book, it is not remarkable that it escaped our
notice