Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-11-07
SATURDAY, October 10, 1850.
Rights of Married Women.

Mr.. OWEN, agreeaby to notice previously given, in
troduced his resolution OF enquiry, in relation to the
rights of married women.
The resolution was as follows:
That the committee the rights and privileges Of
the inhabitants of the State inquire into the expediency
OF Incorporating in the bill of rights the following
ton Women hereafter married in this State shall have
the right acquire and possess property TO their sole
and disposal and laws shall be passed securing
them under equitable conditions, all property real and
personal, whether owned by them before marriage or
acquired afterwards by purchase gift, DEVISE de-
SCENT and also providing for the registration of the we
separate property"
Mr.. OWEN said, he wished to offer few words of
explanation with reference the precise character of
this resolution The change proposed by it differs
sentiay in character from any of the changes which had
already been made in various States of the Union; for
example, IN the States OF New York. Pennsylvania.
Ohio, Maine, Arkansas, Florida Georgia, Alabama,
and several others The changes which had been made
IN these various States in regard the holding of pro-
perty by married women, were changes affecting exist
ng relatons-alectng the property OF those now mar
ried Now he would ask the Convention observe that
in this resoutOn which he proposed to incorporate in the
Constitution, there nothing but what strict
y ospective-relatng the property of here
after married. The difference he regarded very i'm
portant one for if this made apply future
ra9es only and among those about be married there
any who thought, whose parents thought. that
the old law better than the law, nothing would
he more easy than under the old law. The day
before the marriage the bride had only transfer to her
future husband all her personal property and the rents
pIOHts Ol lCd cStdtc Snc NOulu DO pldccu
once under the old law 1t was, therefore, mat
of choice with her whether under tho pro-
visions of the old law, to avail herself Of the proyl.
sions OF the He would not, this stage OF pro-
ceedngs, argue the question whether the principle
volyed in the proposed change right or wrong he
simply desirous of calling the attention Of the Con-
vention the particular character of this resolution
1t would be discussed lie trusted at length by the Con-
vention in a few DAYS.
He would remark, in connexion with this subject that
the people of the State of Indiana had already acted up
on the subiec Ii not a matter even among
them. There was upon the Statute Book now, a law
which made provision in regard TO the real estate o
married women and the rents and profits of that real
The words of the law were that they should
he deemed and taken be her separate property
Whether il the design of this law to give 10 the wife
the sole cement and control of her real estate and
its rents and profits, he did not decides not
belonging to the profession he would not offer any legal
opinion himself that point. He had heard variou:
opinions in regard asserting that II did give
to married such rights of control, and others
that it did The legal distinction in regard TO these
matters Of very nice character. The words tt
her sole and disposal admitted to confer exclu
sye management, while the words for her own use and
benefit !" have been held not to bar the marital right
! He would only say, in conclusion that he had not
brought up this matter hastily nor without debcraton
nor he would add without consultation with wiser ant
written, in regard to the subject, to two Of the mos
eminent iuriss in this any other country-Chancel
lor Kent and Judge Story-and the proper time h
would lay before the Convention their opinions th
subject they were gver to him by letters addressed
to himself
i MFR. KELsO remarked, that the very clause of thi
resolution Of the gentleman from Posey, quoted by bin