The U. S. Government has denied diplomatic recognition to the Lucy Stone League. A nurse in St. Elizabeth's Hospital, Washington, was married last May. The hospital changed her name on its rolls. But the nurse refused absolutely to sign her married name to the payroll, had her lawyer notify the authorities that she wished to retain her maiden name.
This, naturally, disturbed Secretary of the Interior Work. Besides, it complicated the payroll of the hospital, which is under the Interior Department. Mr. Work asked Comptroller General John R. McCarl for an opinion on the case— Mr. McCarl having authority, since he watches over payrolls and all other disbursements from the public purse. Mr. McCarl consulted his legal advisers and decided against the nurse's maiden name. Said he:
"The law in this country, that a wife takes the surname of the husband, is as well settled as that the domicile of the wife merges in the domicile of the husband. A wife might reside apart from her husband, but so long as she remains his lawful wife she has but one legal domicile and that is the domicile of the husband. So it is with the name. She may have an assumed name, but she has but one legal name. The separate legal entity of the wife is not so generally recognized as to accept the maiden name rather than the surname of the husband. It is today the main distinction between a single woman and a married woman, and such fact in the past has appeared upon the payrolls. There appears no valid reason why it should not so continue, and the payroll should state the fact accordingly."
To this Mrs. Heywood Broun 2nd, alias Ruth Hale, a member of the Lucy Stone League, made answer:
"Mr. McCarl's statement is not true. If Mr. McCarl would look into the matter he would find abundant court decisions in this country and England that the name a woman chooses to use is her legal name, and that her baptismal name is accepted on contracts.
"Mr. McCarl went off halfcocked. It is true that the legal domicile of a married woman is that of her husband; but when he made it an analogy with a married woman's legal name, he showed he did not know the facts. He said, in effect: 'As it is with the domicile, so it is with the name.' But so it is not with the name."