New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-11-06

Is o husband at liberty 10 lock up his wife when
ever be may think il necessary, or find it for biz
interest or according to his inclination to do so'
IL be, in the eye Of the law, such custodian oil
her person that he may, upon bis own mere motion,
restrain her Of her liberty either in his own domi-
Gle, or in lunatie asylum or, BY natural infer-
tree, in q penitentiary1 Is there go much Of the
cd teudsl % stem Jet remaining, that here In New
Yo,k, in the year 1857, the male psty to the mar
risee contract may with the sanction of our judi
cal tribunals, imprison the feminine party These
are questions which the line of argument adopted
BY Mr.. Brady in the woodHan case has obliged ia
to consider They are questions quite outside Of
the .cArdalous indeceucy of the examination which
has prompted them, and to which, in consderiog
them, We thsn DO compelled to make but limited
reference.
Mr. Bra6y laid down bis own idea Of the Law
with CONNIE ndable distinctneu. he contended
I'VE quote from our own report) "that it was
"prcper for q husband to keep a lady, under the
ciJcumltances, under sufficient restraint, inds.
"pendent Of the consideration Of insanity" That
the cOJr,e Of Inc argument, the same point: He
"shcud insist, too, that busb and might exercise
go moral restraint over a wife for her good" BY
"noral restraint Mr.. Brady meant Incarceration
in private lunatic asylum.
II appears to Us that the doctrine thus advanced
is 90 mcnstrous, and 30 obviously untenable, that
Mr.. Brady must have resorted to it only as TEN.
poraiy expedient. It is not true in law-and God
fo,bd that j. ever should be-that husband may,
If bis own mere motion, pronounce his wlfe
lunatic, and compel her to submit to the discipline
of an asylum. In the name Of outraged woman.
hood, we utterly and entirely and with all our force
assert that DO law, common, written or ecclesiast
csl, gives to the husband any such authority as
that claimed for him BY Mr.. Brady. To put the
point in the mcst favorable light, we declare that
if the Husband may lock up the wife, the wife has
an equal authority to lock up the husband. But
the simple truth 10 that the marriage contract con-
fers no such prisleges upon either party.
The hurband may undoubtedly have his habsas
corpus to recover the possession Of bis wfes per.
son whsa it is Illegally detained from him; but it
does net follow that after obtaining it he may do
with il as he p|eases. 1t does not follow that he
may exercise Judicial control over it, melting out
to il penalties and prescribing for it the pententA
exercise whichhs may consider to be fit aid proper.
Mr.. Brady says that husband may exercise "moral
restraint But this is quite different thing from
in lupatio asylum. The restraint of
advice Of example, Of sntreaty, Of affection would
be moral; but consignment to mad.house is not
neral, but ply ,icsl restraint, o. Mr. Brady mast
very well know. The right to resort 70 it implies
the right to resort to other methods Of coercion
to whipping, to bread and water, and to inprison-
ment ut home Ths doctrine, If established By ths
Courts, would make woman the slave indeed OF
"ber master" 1t would cloths coarse, sensual
and .yraDricsl mon with power to torment perss,
cute lard abuse their wives with iupunity. No
yoman with an estate in her own right would be
safe from the Vaccinations of an avaricious husband
10 woman could prudently protest against the In
fdelties of an adulteIous coIsort-no woman would
dare to complain Of cruelty or neglect. The wife
who should grow FESTIVE under hermanitoid wrongs
and Injuries would be treated to little Of Mr..
Brsdy's "moral restraint"
With what propriety could Mr. Brady say, pending
the question of insanity, that Mr.. WoOdman might
iu prison bis wife, Independent Of toe question Of
" il sanity 2" Was not this plain hut to Mr..
Justice Roosevelt that bis Court had no jurisdiction
in the pre misssl Was rotth substantially iaying,
1--WE have locked up Mrs. woodman; the law gives
Gus q right to do 40; aud you have nothing to do
" With the matter at oil " Ii seems to us that
Mr.. Brady should here have rested. If his doc
trne vas orthodox, the relator shcuh Q. once have
been ordersd out Of Court. Admitting its sound.
ne,s, the point Is full ample ard complete answer
to the petition. 1t is admitted upon au sides
that Mrs. Wocdman is restrained in Sanford Hall
bs direction of her husband. II he has the legal
right thus to shut Ter up, there is an end to the
Whole Of the case. He may take her to Black
wells Island or to the Tombs, if only the jsilers
VII receive her, Aud what, We beg leave to ask
10 to prevent any bulky, heavy. handed and hard.
be arted hubbard from putticg in Mr. Brsdys plead.
iDg triunphantly Might he not say, Shut her
Sup in tie garnet Kepther upon crusts Gave
"her ccwhidirg To be sure did She needed
"meral restraint. Let her out By no manner
"of means. l refer your honor 10 the case, 'Isre
"sCaItI lie Woodman.'"
We wish ii to be distinctly understood that we
are not Considering at al the question of Mrs.
Voc dmaI's sanity or chastity. But when dis
tinsu:.hed counselor in open court advances
doctrine 60 utterly at variance with common law
and COMMON sense, it is the duty Of the public
press most eDpts!icslly to protest against it
Heaven only knows what results might follow its
ss.sblisimen.-ho many husbands might conduc!
- s;- ntrsrtsble EXCUSES 10 private Bedlams-hoy