Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1847-03-24

G. l.. sHoLEs, EDITOR.
NOuTHP0RT, WEDNESDAY, MARCH d. ISl7

| u Our Anti Constitutional Democrats. at
'heir meeting week or two since, resolved a.
mong o'herthlngs, "That the present laws con.
corning marriage are in conformity with nature !"
we are not LOT one moment going 10 ques.
| lllon their perfect ability to Judge exactlv what
me laws OF nature with regard to the matter are
iof II Is not reasonable to presume they would
| graVeiy resolve on matter of which they yysra
not informed. But we do regret, and will re uret
ana cannot be prevented from regrettine tina I the
laws OF nature, IN this important relation of life
! are so very detective as they are DR. Franklin
we think ltwas, likened m arriage, to ,brus,ino
your hand into bag CONTAINING n;petv-rina
SNAKES and one eel, with the hope of clutching
the eel. The chances were about ninety-nine ,o
one that the adventurer would get bit. DR.. F.
we presume did not eXaggerate matters in this re-
spect, Tor without pretending to perfect knowl-
edge on the subject we imagine the unhappy and
happy marriages bear about that proportion 70
each other. At least the public history of the
world would 50 indicate, without taking into ac-
count tho.e private ieuds and discussions which
though they reach not the public eve and ear. CON-
vert SO many homes into hells. Yet in the face
OF these evident facts, potent, grave and Rev
erend segnors deliberatel resolve that the ,ras
ent laws in relaticn to marriage, are in accord
ance with nature We should really like to know
where they get their authority for the opinion
There is one of two things about it: it is either n
mistaken opinion oftheirs, or else the laws Of ma
ture, have thus far had very little influence. in
nrNI, Al
tins mpo rtant relation of life. Our idea of the
laws OF nature are that when they are lived up to
strictly, happiness to the individual follows. but
II we are to take the reso luton in question sc or
thodox, the contrary is the fact But perhaps we
mlsapprehenh our friends. If they mean by the
laws OF nature with regard to marriage, that op-
poslte sexes should be joined together we fully a.
gree with them; or that each man sbopld have
but one wife, we agree with them there; but if.
rs would seem,they mean that the laws of nature
design tina: woman shall hold no property in
her own right alter marriage we should most re.
specially beg leave to e press the opinion that
the laws # nature were not made with anv refer
ence whatever TO the possession OF real or person
al estate, by either men or women, before or af.
mind knows it. that the laws of nature designed
those unions should be entered iuto from mo, ives
far above any considerations which could arisa
from the possession of property: ard where the
proper mott YES did influence the union, propertv
never yet was able to create d:ssensions There
IS holy love which rises above these things,
which bur rs steady, clear and unwavernq in pros
perity and adversely, ahch originated not from
| worldly considerations and is not influenced by
| them, but which axes the wife from The hi CHEST
| to share willingly the lowest lot of her chosen
p,rtner;a e,even to the prison. Sc to the foot of the
| 9allows with the errings and unfortunate husband
| This is he law of nature, and legislation is power
less to affect ttor good o: evil The questions not
there-but is SIMPLY one of eXpedency or ustice
| towards the woman. For our own part we con-
| sider the provision Of the Constitution important
only, asit Is the beginning of the recognition of
| the principle that woman is really "sotne'' in ere
atlon. That she has an intellect, soul, and is
an individual, distinct existence All the re-
suits which that provision provides for are now
reached bu' the principle is not recognized. A
woman can hold property by means of a trustee,
and neither her husband ncr his creditors can
take or touch it. This provision provides only
that the woman may hold in her own right
what she can not hold by trustee. AS to
frauds, is ii at all difficult now, if husband de
sires it 10 convey property to a trustee for the os
tensioe benefit of the wife. 1t lsa somewhat
more complicated matter and therefore more diff
cult OF detection and that is in reality, the only
difference in this respect there is between the pre-
sent law, and that sought to be established. To
show how things may be done, we will relate a
case. We do not for one moment pretend TO say
there was fraud in the case we relate, for we be-
lieve there was not, we merely wish to show what
might be done where it was desired Hon, Mar
shall NJ. Strong G; who is peculiarly bitter against
the 'Married Woman article the Constitu
ton, had occasion sometime since to make out
for himself schedu lie in Bankruptcy. The SEIZED
ule went on TO show that the wife of the petition
er previous to marriage had become possessed of
otin the village of Racine that il was then held
for her exclusive benefit, by a trustee, that he,
the petitioner, had after maria e erected tene-
ement on it, valued at $500, but as such tene
ment formed part Of the real estate it could not
be taken by the creditors of himself-aud hat con
sequently both house and lot, was in reality the
property of the wife. Nov, as we said above.
we have no idea that there was any fraud in thi.
transaction, but was there any diff Guilty whatev
er in the way OF +. Strong sfurnishing the mon
ey for the purchase of this letand having decided
in trust to his intended wife. Is there any it dicu
ty in the way of any persons doing this thing anC
if there be not, what real objection there b
to this Married Woman's Article as compared
with our present law. The one proposed to b,
4 l. Il = L