Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-11-21

in human affairs, if that so! Has pecunary de-
pendence tendency elevate to purify TO civllze the
character? Is that doctrine man would choose to
teach his son-ay his daughteTl Dependent, TO
some extent the relation of wife her husband is and
profitable occupations of life; custom sanctions this
and if it did not would be, in measure,
shut from these by the engrossng character of
maternal and duties There is great danger, that
this dependence, natural and necessary is, should
give BIRTH the hand, in coarse and overbearng
natures tyranny, and the other, mid and yield
ing natures, TO AFFECT fear Shall the law increase tins
danger, aggravate these evil results Shall make the
I pecnniary dependence of married woman absolute,
hopeless reaching utter denial of the right to call
her even the smallest article oil household property
And TO this abect dependence, to trace, as
their birthplace, the virtues, the endearments that
make HOME the cherished word it isl From source so
base and low any thing good or noble sprngf DO
gather grapes of thorns, figs of thistles2 Is
mans domestic virtue the creature OF Statute that places
her to property, in the category with the Ar
bondsman the infant, the idiot; the insane! Out
upon it 2 Woman is the good the unselfsh being we
find herfar better she always was, in every moral at
tribute than man-woman is, what she is, mot in vr-
ture Of a heartless LAWN spite of it
Look / pray you, a little narrowly yet, at the
doctrine that the harmony of the family connection
upon the pecuniary dependence OF the WIFE, The very
argument presumes in the husband Kindness indulgence,
generosity. 1t presupposes in him spirit which virtu
ally abrogates the law. know rejoice to know that
there many ofmarried couples whose relations
to each other alteration of the law which should make
the wife an Independent owner oil property, would work
compelled 10y law ard following delicate instinct OF JUS
tce either legally virtually places his wife in position
OF pecunary independence But IT is not for such men,
such cases. that laws made necessary. 1t
is the province OF law to restrict not the and
the just but the Violent the UNJUST the encroachng 1t
is for the bad not the good that legislation is required
Yet in the of husband good, and JUST and
kind can we assert with truth that the law is free from
injurious eectl The power of granting pecuniary ia
vors ought not to be all one side. 1t must CRATE,
sometimes sensitive and generous nature to repeat
eve o a N
little purchase for money made at moment perhaps,
when it i'll be spared Just and proper, it may be,
yet to which, beyond bare support, the petitioner has
much legal right the hired girl has,
demand her wages. The confidence of familiar affection
takes it true from this from every other false po
stion its sting but the position not the less false the
law not the less nequitable, that account
We trust to the husbands generosity supply the
wife With all she may properly demand. And can we not
trust to the wiie generosity, if she be the independent
owner OF property, TO grant to the husband IN his time
of need all he reasonably require Do we find, in
the other sex, less iberalty than in ours Are their
affections less warm their sympathies less active F? In
the dark hour OF adversely, do they cling less faithfully
do they sacrifice less freely, than do1 That is
not my experience Of women Ruth, in her sef-devo
ton, when in the expressive words Of Scripture, she
cave unto Naomi is but the type Of Der The Ian
guage of woman not to faithful friend alone often TO
one orthy be called hcg cherisher and proec
rs the same to-day ast was three thousand ago
Whittier thou goest hither will GO. Where thou
lodgest, there will L lodge. Where thou diest will
die, and there will be buried. Tho Lord do to me
and more also, if aught death part aud thee"
Women, even with their whole property in their own
hands and at their sole disposal are much more likely to
besow il mprudenty than TO withhold il seishly.
Ought todeny to them the qualification dear every
generous mind yet within the reach only the ndepend
ent owner Of property OF aiding by pecuniary sacrifice,
the object Of their affections?
Under the Lappest marriages, the provisions Of the
Common Law but nugatory. They never better
than useless But what shall we say of them when the
dependence of the wife for everything not upon gen.
erous friend, but upon harsh, SELFISH exactng MASTER!
ora less aggravated ase,-upon reckless improve
dent spendthrfl These the cases where change
OF law is wanted These the eases where the wife
should have power secure from tyranny exrava.
gance, Pecuniary protection for herself and her
children, against dependence and want.
lt is argument both weak and worthless that If
do by law, withhold fair share of independent power
from women, they will still contrive by nagement
get that and moro than their share Say that women in
the did much frequently than they do usurp,
by arul manGuvrng the rights which the law denies
them. is the denying law therefore, Just in its principle
moral in its influenced An Eastern despot's iawnng
avorite though his life be- ut any moment at his
tiers disposal may acquire unbounded sway and become
the virtual ruler of the land. But favorsm is an i'm.
proper, because immoral, source of power. A noble
nature will not stoop TO the ntrgues through which such
power Is commonly reached.
We ought not so to place women, that any of their
rights must be won by arts OF Establishment That is
demoraizng situation Where true affection exists, it
Will show itself without any reference 20 property.
Where it does not exist it degradcs the character TO
1 wear its counterfeit, from mercernary motive.
There is species of very silly sentlmentasm which
1t is the fashion to put forth in after dinner oasts and
other equally veracious FORMS about women being the
only tyrant in free Republics about the chains she i'm
poses her willing slaves the despotism of her resist
less arts the sovereign power OF her conquerng beauty
IL would be much credit, il would administer
E little less hattery and little more justice.
f A VOICE Consent to that sentiment! Cries OF
q consent, CONSENT"
n MIR. OWEN. 1t needed not such expression from the
Convention me- that the sentiment finds echo
A in their hearts. know well that il does
Mr.. President, have thus briefly and slightly sketch
ed the doctrine of the Common Law regard: the
property of married women and have adverted in gen.
eral terms, TO the consequences of that doctrine So
harsh has that law been found in all modern nations
where prevails; unjust in its working under frequent
contingencies widely with that mild spirit
of civilization which is gradually replacing the law othe
stronger that the mitigating aid of equity has been uni
versaly invoked, TO modify the oppressive severity Of
: its provisions
The chief relief thus afforded rests in a species Of
evasion. The wife may not own property may re-
cevc gifts, may not accept legaces; but others may
own accept, receive, for her. married woman may
acquire and control both real and personal property by
. the Intervention Of trustees.
Upon this principle marriage settlements so common
in Great Britain, executed. The extent of relief
there obtained by this evasion Of the Common Law NAV
I, be Judged from the opinion expressed by English
lawyer Of experience and referred by Ciancel
or Kent that extensive have become the grow
ing out of marriage settlements in England, that hall
the property of the Kingdom is vested in nominal
! owGers
Among us, in this Western country, this crmbrous
# and expensive and somewhat dangerous machinery
Iruseeshp is, comparatively but seldom resored TO-
1t is too elaborate for And why should
it be required at all? If it be right and proper that
ried women should and acquire and control proper
ty why this tortuous and doubtful of permitting
) The change embodied in the sections now under dis.