The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1850-07-16

ference to this MISUNDERSTANDING that par
''eular passages will occur readily enough to!
Mrs. Nichols and to our readers.
In every household, there must be oncI
head. The distinguishing qualities-mentalI
and physical of the male and female mn.
snre, seem TO leave no doubt as 10 which So
. IS best fitted for erecutire duties, for the SC /
verer and ruder conflict with the ou,woraI
world and which for the more quiet andI
gentle, though perhaps not less trying, rel
possibilities of home. Indeed, il is no dog
ha'lsm-lt is a mere truism-to say that ma
ure has percmptorily decided this bv nm un.
Manageable law. The question only remains
and 1t is on this that the Democrat takes
issue with do the laws of this State, adj. |
hitting so much, secure to woman all berl
RIGHTS
So far as the acquisition and possession of
property are concerned, this question can|
clato only TO those who have entered theI
rarricd state. (For in single life, both sex
IS have similar rights secured lhcm.) lIereE
he law conicmplatcs no separate, individual
property, except that direadyi in existence be.
ore marriage. THIS, our law secures to theI
wife. All that can be commended for, there !
ore, is, that husband ard wifc-no IongcrE
tci'ng togeher, simply, for common benefits
md with common aims-shall carefully reck- /
IN their separate ircomcs, nicely computes
ltheir separate expenses, and each have thef
anne individual and selfish interests as ink
nglc life. The commonly received thcoryE
hat man and woman have distinct natural
qualities Of mind that need to be combined, !
land act tremendously together towards oneE
lpurpose'-and so acting are far more eflicientE
han either could be aone-is to be set aside (
md we are to have these qualities drectedE
/ % different purposes, in opposition and riv. (
1 parry, or else united simply as in a mere bus /
mess partnership. The economy, tact. andE
ingenuity, for which her sex is par,cularlyt
! distinguished, are to be directed to woman 81
benefit alonc-or if otherwise, it must be al
mere charity and a gratuity-while the mas !
,culine energy and worldly experience of
nan is to be made to contribute to his own!
advantage solely; and the simple notonl
1 ot the two cooperating, with mutual devo.I
ton and sympathy which makes them oNE-I
| N property and in every interests to bel
heard Of no more The plain truth is, the!
The law cannot take cognizance Of the indi.I
'idual earnings and mdiciduai expenses off
! nan and wife. If our law does the wife anvil
wong IN this respect, it is not from the f.r.l
l inny Of the legislature but from the impo
\ ency OF all law. Marriage according to theE
Christian systcm) contemplates unity oil
flea sacred connection, which mere hu.
lnan law has no right 10 invade with its rudel
calculations and computations,-a mneling
i income and expense which it is impossi -.
lie to provide any just and universal rule
or analyzing and separating.
The Democrat denies that It's objections
/ IRE confined to the ercepiions where all law,
must necessarily do more or less Injustice
md proceeds to argue from one Instance
with promise Of others hcreafler) wherein
Is assumed that universal injustice is done
Now, we submit, with all respect, tina. the
ase treated Of above is ou,siie of all that,
We have been discussing heretofore, though
q may, perhaps be properly considered ii.
connection with the subject. The rinhls Of
he r'do'c 1t is assumed and ;p!ausibly ar
'ued' are not sufficiently cared for, by our
present laws. Mrs, Nichols thinks the hirei
l scanty piltance, for one who has labored
4 sqm'ty' to accumulate the property left.
!" While twothrds go to the children, who are
assumed TO have done nothing towards tn,
1objcct, or to the husbands relatives who
i arc still further from any claim on her ser.
3vices.
4 We are prepared 10 defend this lAw-as q
Agenerdt one-to the full extent. Let it be
i distinctly understood, at The outset, that all
] The wiies individual property, at the time Of
5marrlage, is fully secured to her in her own
fright, by the present law. OF all the prop
ierty accumulated in common after marriage
4 he law gives her one third, and also one
4 hIrd OF the property possessed y the hus-
Wand at the time Of marriage, (supposing il
3to have been retained until hisdeath). Now,
a according to the relative earnings of man
Hand woman, we maintain that in nine cases
lout of ten, such a settlement of an estate does
smore for The widow, than in strict Justice
she is entitled TO- As to the dividend to the
Husbands next Of kin, where there are nc
schildrcn 10 inherit, it is made altogether reas
aonable by the fact that, in probably large
i majority Of cases, a considerable share of The
4properiy so divided belonged originally tC
Hhe family estate, and in default OF hoirs in
lai direct line, ought 20 revert to it. And
.dhere still another fact should come into view
(which to our mind, removes the only just
- ground of objection that can remain in thi
,ase, viz. where the estate is small, the Pro
bate Judge exercises a discretion in behalf
1of the widow and saves her from absolute
rdHt, so far as possible from the avails of al
that is left, even Were it may have been il
IA good degree her own fault that the estat
Oh no larger.
1t is our belief that the number of womei
Iiwho are dissatisfied with the present laws, s
Mar as they are concerned, is very small
HWere it otherwise, we should speak less con
Hidehtly of our convictions of the Justice