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

years of wrong and suffering aonetbis is to
evnce either ignorance Of human nature disregard OF
human welfare.
The lawgiver is should he, dispassionate and
experenced the young betrothed is usually neither the
one nor the other The law, therefore, nterposng its
protecting shield should by general enactment create
those checks and guards, which she is not likely,
though she has the right while yet SINGLE to provide, In
her individual case, for herself III she see mt to dis
pense with the guards and checks thus provided be
it but let expect her to them. The fore
thought of parent or guardian may, indeed and often
does, supply the deficiency; but In this there is
tainy: the chance of such interposition all
justify neglect the part Of that General Guardian, the
Law.
But in securing to married rights of property
bear mind that these rights bring with them
duties The laws of New York Wisconsin, and other
States seem framed in forgetfulness Of this
but the Civil Law admits and provides for ii requiring
that the wife shall bear portion Of the marriage expen
This proportion varies according the necessity
of the and the means of the wife.
To meet this the constitutional provision should de-
clare that the property OF married women shall be
cured to them under equitable conditions 1t for the
law afterwards to determine in detail what these condi
tons shall be.
Again, as legislative provision we would do well
adopt another principle from the Civil Law. Under
that system, the wife has not strictly speaking, equal
rights with the husband for to every partnership there
must be manager, and the husband, from the charac
ter of his avocations compared with the wife and
mother naturally becomes such. Ii the vile leave her
property in her husbands hands, failing personally to
administer it. it is considered to be under his manage
ment.
1t is only in case Of formal opposition on her part
that he becomes responsible for its and profits In
ordinary cases. under any law, the wife will usually
leave the property in her husbands hands In gener
al way she will resume her control over it, only he
evnce reckless or spendhrt disposition as it is Just
and prudent she should do.
One other provision should copy into our Statute
from the Civil Law; namely, that in the case of debts
contracted by the wife before marriage the husband
shall be holden, but the wife and her shall be
| liable.
1t is unnecessary that should enter into further de-
tail General provisions are all we can propery ADOPT
in Organic Law.
And now, Mr.. President in conclusion, let me advert
to objection, always strong one, always carrying
with it much weight when there is question of novel
form.
1t is commonly dangerous, told, to enter a
and untrodden path. So it may be- Yet if of pion-
Amercaf we, the tenants of these western wilds,
where roamed and ruled but half century ago. the In
dian and the beast of the ores- we had never enter
ed any but the beaten track, where pray you, would
have been the power where the prosperity OF the West
to-day! In the distant future, YETI unborn, nntred for
True it is, that we should not enter unirequented
path without seeking to learn from experienced guides,
what is its character and whittier il leads Nor, in the
case before US, have done Thirteen years ago,
when this first especially engaged my attention,
addressed private letters the subject two of the
distinguished among the then living jurists
of America-now numbered with the dcad!-to Chancsl.
or Kent and to Judge Story. From both received
vention will here read few extracts
Chancellor Kent begins by admitting that he is not
nsensbe TO the many harsh features contained in the
English Common Law code relative 20 the relation of
husband and wife" He is not in favor of an entire sub
stitution of the Civil Law for the Common Law; nor is
any such proposition embodied in these Sections He
whole and introducing substitute that Of Lou
siana prefer our own, but with an inclination TO have
parts of il ameliorated.'
In Judge Story's letter to me he expresses in more
al.
menares, his opinion in regard the proprey of rad
ca reform in this matter. His words ares
l "Thc present state of the Common Law with regard
TO the rights of property between husband and wife, is
nequitabe, unjust and i'll adapted to the purposes of
refined and civilized society" (Can language be stronger
than thatO "There are" he continues. Sin the Civil
Law system great many admirable provisions; and
am not sure whole whether II does not work better
than that of the Common Law on this subject"
Farther he adds, that in his opinion, our law il
stands requires great alterations and amendments for
ing to them after well as before marriage"
consider myself fortunate in thus being able TO pro.
duce, in support Of the position am defending, the
opinion Of one Of the most eminent ursts country
has ever produced.
Can we find more experienced guides than these,
from whom obtain Information touching the road
we proposing enterl But this is not all. The
road has been travelled by thousands by millions before
us. In Europe the nations of France, Germany, Spain,
Holland and others give independent rights of property
to the wife And let me cite to you what Kent says Of
the result. 'Whatever doubts this is his language,
whatever doubts arise in the mind of person ed
ucated in the school Of the Common Law, TO the wis.
dom policy of the powers, which, by the Civil Law
and the law OF those modern nations that have adopted
IT, conceded to the wife in matters of property vet
be denied, that tho pre-emnencc of the Chris
an nations Of Europe and Of their descendants and col
oniss in every other quarter of the GLOBE most str
kngy displayed in the equality and dignity which their
institutions confer upon the female character"
But need not the Atlantic TO find examples oil
the adoption Of this principle; no. yet need we dc.
scend the Mississippi New Orleans. Nearly half the
States of the Union have already led the way before
US. Women already recognized as independent
owners of property in New York, in Pennsylvania, in
Maine, in Ohio, in Wisconsin. in Arkansas in Fori-
da in Alabma, in Texas and in other States; among
them the Youngest sister Of the Conederacy but re.
Gently welcomed into the Union. read from the Con-
} sttution Of California.
"An property, both real and personal, of the wife
owned or claimed before marriage and that acquired
afterwards by gift devise descent shall be her sepa
rate property and laws shall be passed clearly de-
nng the rights Of the wife, in relation well TO her
separate property to that held in common with her
husband Laws shall also be passed providing for the
registration of the wiie's separate property"
This section goes furthe; than 1t recognizes
that feature of the Civil Law, which is usually called
the community of gains" the "conjugal partner
ship according which the produce oil the Joint industry
of husband and wife, during marriage, becomes and
mains their Joint property Our sections, reported
leave the introduction the OMISSION Of that principle
optional with the Legislature.
The path before us, then, is Wild untrodden one
surrounded with hazardous adventure bcse with untr
ed dangers That path has been trodden already
safely happily by other States, by other nations and
which Of them all has yet sought to retrace its
I stepsl
Do You scruple do you still doubt whether peo
pie at home will second and approve righteous a
change Think better of your State, more worthily oil
your fellow citizens. Has chord been touch
ed within yourselves by the appeal feeble though
ha ored IN instr nj