Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-07-27

~
Mr.. STROTHER argued that Inc previous
question should not be sustained, as "ou'u
prevent the house from properly adjusting me
provisions OF the bill.
The House. 81 TO 81. gave leave iof 'he Will
drawa OF The motion.
Mr.. CLAIBORNE said he was not prepared
now 10 vote, and he was anxious 10 near i'ou'
other gentlemen. h;o,,
MrSCOTT thought the laws on this snoIecs
should be modified for the better proleclioh VI lhe
property OF married women-bnI ne conia NO,
vote Tor The present scheme, which ne analy@eu
and condemned. The 1st section ne ooIec'eu w
because The slaves were her separate properly,
and not joint fund, 10 meet the charges ana eA'
peDses attending their possession-i inc slaves
become burthcn, they are dead expense 10 me
husband, in which The wife does not al all SHARE
The ID section, Mr. g. said, instead oil protecting
her other property, gave him the sole control Of
that properly during coverlure This is strong
protection 10 lhe husband, but poor protection
10 the wife. The husband keeps thousands OF
dollars, and yel the poor creditor, who has trusted
him, is cut off MIR. S. argued that gentlemen
should adopt provision which would secure Inc
wiie's property OF all kinds against devastation
and waste, and against all claim OF the husband
totally nercepling the husbands marital rishIs.
Mr.. 5. read an amendment, which would ell
cienlly carry OUT the object desired. Upon an
enquiry by Mr.. Ferguson, Mr. s. SAID thai ne
could not vote for The amendment ne mao read:
Mr.. WHIrTLE moved 10 strike out slaves.
10 The first section and insert "personal property
oil married women. Mr.. w. canddly confessed
that he was opposed 10 The whole scheme as pro-
posed-bul il the bill is 10 pass, he desired 10
make it as perfect as possible. Mr.. w. thought
The whole scheme calculated not TO project The
rights OF married women, but substantially TO
protect husband against his honest debs. he
thoroughly agreed with the gentleman from
Northampton in his opposition 10 the % section.
Mr.. FERGUSON could no! understand The
course Of gentlemen who profess 10 oppose all
action on this subject and still cay that The friends
OF The measure do not 60 lar enough. He (Mr.
F was ready 10 go for the amendment OF Mr..
SCOTT. He was ready 10 go all lengths TO
protect The properly Of the wile-but he did mol
think that The House would now go farther than
The sections as proposed. Let US adopt them now
as basis OF action, which may hereafter be en-
largei by The Legislature 10 meet The demands
OF experience. Mr.. F. continued TO reply to Mr..
SCOTS objections to The "a section, project
ing the property against the debts OF the husband
contracted prior TO marriage. Those debts were
not contracted on The faith Of that properly and
should not be made burlhen on il. II lhe pre-.
sent scheme is not satisfactory lei gentlemen,
The enemies or friends OF the scheme, produce
better scheme.
Mr.. CLAIBORNE should vote against The
proposed scheme. He suggested 10 substitute for
the whole scheme The 2nd section, protecting all
the property OF The wife against the debts Of the
husband contracted prior 10 marriage
Mr.. c. had lived in Louisiana, and he cited
cases in that Stale and Mississippi, where the
husband was loaded with debts, OF which not
one cent could be recovered, bul their wives live
in The utmost luxury drive The finest horses, and
wear the finest diamonds. Mr.. c. protested
against the disgraceful results which would fol-
low this forming separate estates OF husband and
wife. de did not believe that The ladies OF Viz
GINA desired or would agree TO so mischievous
proposition. MIR c. said he'wifs was partner
in The contract, and should agree 10 abide by the
results Of his transactions. WHEELER for better or
worse. He regarded The system IS tull OF mis-
chief.
Mr.. BURWELL would vote for The bill, in.
trinscally detective as il is-but il The bill be
rejected, he should move subsIi ue for project
ing the properly Of The wife against the debts Of
The husband, due q: The lime OF the marriage
Nh B. alluded TO the difficulties OF The case. He
would not legislale 10 lie up property Ter the be-
neiit of the husband or wic-bul for the benefit
whence 10 marriage.
Mr.. STROTEER preferred the amendment
read by Mr.. SCOTT, aud should offer il, when
10 order.
Mr.. FAULKNER was willing 10 90 10 Ger,
tain limit but he never would, BY his vote, des-
troy THAT unity oil relations between husband
and wife, one OF the principles OF The common
law. For this reason, he could mol sustain The
Isl section as amended, on motion OF Mr. PRICE,
taking away The husbands control.
Mr.. PERROW would vole against he bill.
He was opposed 10 any law which would pro-
duce separate estates These separate estates
will produce separate interests and feelings, and
lead to mischievous results.
Mir. WHlTTLE was opposed to this whole
system IS calculated 10 sap The foundations OF
happiness in domestic relationship. he was
willing 10 see The scheme as perfect as possible.
he had, therefore, moved TO substitute personal
property" for "slaves" in the Isl section, as he
could see no difference between slaves AMI
other personal properly
Mr.. DORMAN said We were not authorized
by the people TO pass upon so grave question.
He cited The effect OF similar laws in Northern
States, wsere the unity OF interest had been bro
ken up, and evil consequences ensue6. The gen.
teman from Wheeling mad compared the propos
ed system to marriage settlements. Mr.. D. was
opposed 10 grand marriage settlement, through
the State under which The rich would marry The
rich, raising up great Patician class. Mr. D.
said The ladies' needed no such protection, and he
wound up with glowing compliment 10 The Iri-
unphs oil beauty and wit.
MIR. IRVING said The debate had shown that
it was impossible 10 adjust any system on this
subject, which would be satisfactory but he still
thought we should adopt The provision protecting
fho ffojc fha rs6 fn%sn of fho
husband for debts contracted prior 10 marriage
We could do thus much-lhere were insuperab'e
objections to doing anything more. He would,
therefore, vote Tor the Two last seclions-the first
had been completely exposed by The gentleman
lrou Fauqnier.
Mr.. WHITrLE asked the ayes and noes on
his amendment, which was LOST; ayes 40, noes
81.
MIR. STOVALL moved TO reconsider The vote
agreeing 10 Mr.. Prices amendment. He was
opposed TO making separate properly Of The
wife, and reconsideration OF The vote would ra
move This objection, urged by The opponents CT
the measure.
Mr.. PRICE. II the motion prevail it will be
a missioner TO call il a bill for the protection OF
The rishs OF married women. II is protection
like that OF the wolf over the lamb. II the mo.
lion prevail, he should vote against lhe whole
system-i, would mol in any way secure The
rights of married women.
MIR. LANE thought this bill would stop all the
contracts for marriage now 10 progress He
would ask lis Indefinite .posiponement-b but The
Speaker said II was not in order.
Mr.. S rOVALL'S motion was lost-and MIR.
CONWAY moved the previous question.
Mr.. STROTHER hoped The previous Ques.
ton would not prevail, as he Tishcd TO tffef =
substitute, substantially that suggested by Mr..
| Scott.
After remarks from Messrs. CONWAY
FERG USON, COOKE and THOMSON o! J.
ia favor, and Messrs. STROTHER and YER.
BY against, The previous question was sustain.
ed.
Mr.. RIyEs asked The ayes and noes on The
adoption of the three ssci oIs reported from The
Select Committee, as amended this morning by
the House.
Mr.. FAULKNER asked for division OF The
question SO as to take separate vote on each Of
the three sections
The sections were rejecled-ayes %, hoes 49,