Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1857-12-09
Two Sides to That Question.

A New York correspondent of the
Boston Journal relates an incident as an
act Of nobleness in a married woman,
who voluntarily and without the knowl-
edge of her husband, came forward, as
soon as she heard of that husbands fail
ure. and gave up her own large and val.
liable estate for the benefit of his credit
ors. That correspondent goes off in
e~csta'ic admiration of that act, winding
up his adulations with the Bible quota.
ton. "Many daughters have done virtu.
ously, but thou excellest them ALL" We
will not detract an iota from the gene
rosity and forgetfulness of self which
actuated the woman, yet We think she
was guilty of a very foolish deed, and as
it appears she acted upon the impulse Of
the moment we doubt not. she, by this
time. agrees with us in opinion.
Among the prominent and praisewor-
thy reforms of the day, noue oulranks
that OF legal provision for the mother
and children against the time when mis-
fortune may visit the husband and faith
er. So far as "Woman's Rights" claim
that a portion of the property jointly
earned by the wife's and husbands ex
%ertions, or jointly preserved by them,
shall, by law, be secured 10 her own
sole control. and be placed beyond reach
Of the husbands creditors, we 90 for
them to the full. Justice sanctions such
a course; humanity demands it. Every
n ~applauds the deed. when legally and
honesty, a married woman can be secur.
ed a competency. in her own right, and
the very reason for SO securing to her
such competency. arises from the risks
which surround her husbands business
ventures. 1t is done in anticipation Of
the day when misfortune may overtake
him ard put it beyond his power to
make provision for her. Were his sue
cess in life secured beyond contingency,
there would be no occasion for separate
settlement, and assuredly it is the height
of folly in a woman to give up her own
property. upon the happening of that
contingency against which such settle
ment. or separate ownership, is intended
TO provide.
We ice knew a blushing bride in the
first gush of overlooking confidence.
hand 10 her husband a transfer OF a few
thousand dollars in bank shaIes-a pat
rimony left by her father. Her friends
demonstrated, but, with nothing 10 break
her vision of a ~cloudless, happy future,
she Indignantly replied, I'm not afraid
to trust my husband with my property
That husband had the good sense 10
scratch out that transfer and decline the
gilt. and although for years his course of
uninterrupted, honorable prosperity was
smooth, still misfortune came and the
fresh sod upon his grave covered a bank
rupt- That foolish bride, in her now
widows weeds, and with an orphan
child, is saved from want by that pat
rimony, she, with a scratch of a pen,
would so thoughilsssly have committed
to the tempest of commercial revulsions
That which would uoi have saved him
an hours unhappiness. or checked for. q
moment his downfall, has saved her from
years of wretchedness.
The woman. we assert, that who with
ont being under any legal or moral OBJ
to do so, parts with her separ-
ale property for the benefit Of her hus-
bands creditors, is not only guilty of a
breach of trust. Such woman has. no
generous impulses, but she lacks
common sense.--Cl Cleveland Herald.