Mother Earth, are the heroes dead?
Do they thrill the soul of the years no more?
Are the gleaming snows and the poppies red
All that is left of the brave of yore?"
Great deeds never die; noble thoughts are immortal. Bartlett mansion is still haunted with the presence of its illustrious owner. He is dead; yet he lives—lives in his descendants who inherit his character; lives in the quiet chambers of his old home where he walked in the olden time; lives in the constitution of his adopted state which bears the impress of his genius; yea, lives in that immortal document to which is appended his name, and which is one of the noblest productions of human thought—the Declaration of Independence.
Note.— The original coat-of-arms of the Bartlett family was a black shield, upon which were displayed three left hand falconer's gloves, white, arranged triangularly. Band around the wrists and golden tassels. The arms had no crests till Henry V. granted a castle to Sir John in commemoration of his capture of the castle of Fontenoy in France. In the following century the swan crest was introduced in honor of their right to keep swans upon the river Avon, which courses through the estate, which had been granted by William the Conqueror. In 1616 there were the quarterings of eight families upon the coat-of-arms: namely, Bartelot, Stopham, Lewknor, Doyley, Tregor, Caymoys, Walton, and Syheston. At the present date there are eleven quarterings, three additional heiresses having come into the family by marriage—Smith, Musgrave, and Boldero. A fac simile of this coat-of-arms has been shown me by the venerable Levi Bartlett, of Warner, who obtained it of Sir Walter in England at the time he was engaged in writing the genealogy of the Bartlett family, printed in 1877.
FOUR SUGGESTIONS FOR OUR LAW-MAKERS.
I.
Under our statutes the larceny of property of the value of $20 and upward is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five years; while the willful and malicious destruction of the property of another, of the same value, is punishable, in most cases, by a fine of not exceeding $100, or by imprisonment in the house of correction not exceeding one year, or by both. Is there any good reason why one who destroys the property of another out of pure hatred and wantonness should be punished so much less severely than one who unlawfully takes it for the benefit of himself or those dependent upon him, perhaps under the pressure of extreme destitution?
II.
While in this, as well as in many other states, the property rights of married women are now in most respects substantially equal, in some respects superior to those of their husbands, the rules of the common law in regard to the relations between themselves and their children remain unchanged. If a widow marries again she thereby loses her right to the custody of her minor children by a former marriage (State vs. Scott, 30 N. H. 274), and, as the step-father is not bound to adopt them, they may have no legal custodian. The statute entitles a woman to hold, free from the interference and control of her second husband, such property as she may have derived from a former marriage. Are not the reasons why she should be entitled to the custody of her own children, derived from the same source, at least equally strong? Are not a mother's rights superior to those of strangers by the law of nature? Ought they not to be made so by the law of the state?
