Liberty advocate. [volume] (Liberty, Miss.) 1835-1866, 1846-04-04
THE WON ANS LAW.


= II IS something strange that in thi
Polite age an age assuming as a pecuIia
merit lis principle Of progressiveness
, mere should be any thing like vehemen
objection TO this law. And ifa contrary
rule had not come down 10 us, with 9th.
er 0ar6arittes of the common law, we doubI
very much whether any mans native,
spontaneous sentiments of Justice would
mot scout the idea that the estate of a
married woman, as we'll as herself, ceased
10 nave legal existence as soon as she
entered into matrmony. That after that
period she should be ranked in the scale
Ioi regal exIstences, with a rotten odious
corporation, and be allowed a mere arti
hclal and ideal being. Let no man mis-
'ako US; venerate the great principles
OF liberty bound up in The common law
nu' WINE we DO SO, we are not insensi.
Die to Its barbarltes. And this one, off
sinking the legal existence Of a married
woman, we Inink may be sadly placed
beside that of Imprisonment for debt; or
me maxim that the "king can do no
wrong" or that the eldest son shall take
all the estate TO support the dignity of
me family Is there any foundation in
nature for such an idea?
Does woman in fact cease to exist as
a rational, intelligent being, worthy a
partnership with IA gentleman, and be
oollo an aoIect slave, as soon as she muir
ries! And does her husband by the mat
tie, at once, become a lord and {
master o! her person and eslate?-The O
common law says so--but is il SO in the :
nature or things, or The nature Of the con I
'faclF That's the question. There is 4
ust about as much reason, and a little \
nore' so lar as we have abserved things. n
n the nature Of things, and in The nature D
u Inc matrimonial alliance, why the a
husband should cease legally to exis, rs 81
ne VIE And if we get out of the nature o
me transaction itself, and look 10 their m
e'eral capacItes-as observed by expe in
'ence--lor masership. she is decidedly OF
ne better of the two to be made dictator n
no iord. She will be much more kind ey
nd indulgenl. Much more prudent and re
1fe'u'' Less given TO wild speculation. of
III never drink ofa fortune in doc. CO
cry, or gamble it away 10 one of I he be-
'cN' rooms (styes) of these resorts of tin
eir elevated lords. But the "smart fel. RE
~S' and this country is so full of them CHI
al tney have become a nuisance, saw =
'ust man go and ask his wife to buy
m a SHIRT when he begins to near TO.
lrds natures drapery?" Now we have
0 answers to this splendid and pathetic acc
estion' First, we say if any man mar wit
woman to keep him in shirts, il, {
old be a mean and shameful evasion ooO
ne contract not TO defer somewhat 10 fro,
Judgment, as to his necessities in The Mo,
erestlnS particular aforesaid. Sec. lar
~, we say, that a fellow who cam, NJ,
P himself IN shirts, without the assis. o;ye
co Of his wife, would turn her naked sbo
shlverng beggar upon the cold sIa ~
rites OF the world, if the law did mn, Val
lIfe him to consul, her in such cases daus
,rdeF that she may Judge whether he lane
Is the article more, or a sh cob. Sha
rinor;I ,, y no'u '"a' 'he parties to a York
a,ed sonaI,u r e".et n' upon an ing I
- d;J"I1y "a' 'hey nave mu' Portl
Ihar ""u eonseh'ed together, Gema
mannefs nv. 80. ~ na'uFe' society capita
comnoa., "'U NE, po''eo' equals ana wor- over!
m IN ~ "as neither Is 10 swal his, {
win the habits of prodlga, the she h
IS and property Of the other. Ana and
the common law slept in, and, in its 10 r, -
language, made the husband che ,bay
ute lord OF the person and estate of So me
~ oIuoo 70 nature and proxi
Iyon ' - =" ''0'"'ou gentleman they |
put vi