Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-01-26

Aue AtenAa OF M9ErA9O w Omeut &C.
Senator PARISH, of the Huron and Erie dis
trict, has introduced a bill in the Senate to
defne the rights of married women in relation
to holding property, &C., and the bill occupied
the attention of the Senate in COmmittsS Of
of the Whole, on Monday. As the matter is
one which interests large clTss of readers Of
both sexes, we clip as follows from the official
reports:
Mr.. Jones moved to strike out all after the
enaeting clause.
Mr.. Parish explained the objects Of the bill
lst It exempts the property belonging to y
woman before marriage from the control or
debts Of her husband upon her assuming the
marital relations, and continues it in her right
3D. 1t also secures property belonging to e
woman already married, the rents, profits, de-,
Of it to them, the sane as if they were single
excepting in SO far as the property may already
have become liable for her husband'a debts; and
it releases the husband from liability for the
debts OF the wife, whether contracted before or
after marriage.
Sec. 8. Allows married women to take by
inheritance, devise, DC, and to sell, &c, any
property, the same as an unmarried woman,
and it shall be from her husbands authority
prOUidsd, that if che permits her husband to
use her property in business, said property
shall be liable for his debts contracted in said
business.
Sec. Enables married women 10 make con~
tracts, to sue and be sued, plead, &c as if
they were single; except as to their husbands.
No such proceedings 10 abate by marriage
Sec. Allows women during coverture right
to their time and to profits of their labor, earn
ings, DC; PrOUided, husband and wife shall be
jointly and severally bound for the support,
&C., Of their own children, and for their own
mutual support while the marital relation ex-
lists.
Sec. 6 Enables woman who was executrix,
&C., before marriage, to act in that capacity
afterwards, and mskes married women eligible
to such positions.
Sec. Contracts between persons in contem.
platiOn of marriage, to remain in force after
marriage.
Mr.. Parish expaliated upon the evils of the
existing laws in relation to women.
and advocating revolution in the premises. He
was in favor Of securing to women the fullest
legal rights compatible with their natural rights.
He said the frat three sections of the bill are
almost verbatim the law now on the statute
books of New York. He did not claim that the
measure is altogether new thing, although it
is new here. He submitted that an equalization
Of the rights of men aud women would con-
tribute to the welfare of society. Among other
reforms he thought it would be apt to effect,
would be q reduction of divorce cases, and he
was opposed to laws which require women to
60 out of legal existence upon entering the
marriage condition.
| Mr. Cox was not satisfied with the arguments
of the gentlemen for his bill He recognised
progress in society, but did not regard the ma.
king the direction Of ths interests of husbands
and wives more and more several, in the right
line of progress. He regarded it wise legisla.
ton to protect and make more sacred the family
relation. The bill before the committee would
not do this as it makes distinctions and inter
ests which should De united. The true policy
is to protect the personal independence Of the
wife, but make the interests of husbands and
wives joint, and closely united as possible
Mr.. Jones thought that the existing statute
meets the necessities of the case, if men and
their wives would live together as they should
do. He thought infidelty increased in proper
ton to the legislation which makes separate
the interests of husband and wife, is a contra.
vention of law of the author of our being II
| is declaring that man and his wife are no Ion.
| ger one flesh, but twain. He did not like the
partnership interest, alluded to by the gentle
man from Trumbull Instead of making a
union such as is contemplated by marriage, but
a mere partnership contract.
Mr.. Parish thought the progress contemplated
by the bill would not affect the sanctity of the
marriage relation, but would produce happy
results. He thought it just to relieve the wife
from the restraint to which she is now subject.
ed, and would promote the objects Of marriage.
Mr.. Monroe objected to the bill because he
did not believe in the philosophy which under.
lies legislation to protect the rights of married
women. The happiness Of the family will be
best promoted, the nearer you can come to per.
feet unity. Hence he was opposed to legislation
that tends to make husband and wife separate
powers. Just in proportion as unity is promo.
ted you increase the family and social happi.
ness. lie deemed it indispensable to the hap.
pinesS of a couple that one or the other should
| &c as nearly out of legal existence as possible
and could not discover the evils resulting from
it which his friend from Erie seemed to depre
cate. He thought the worst of family in thC
world, is the family without head, and the
natural tendency of bills like this is apt to de-
strOy that headshiP in the family, and promote
discOrd.
Mr.. Key would not support the bill of thu
Senator from Erie, hut be was fully of th'
opinion that there should be further lsgislatiOr
in Ohio for the protection of the property AMI
earnings of married women. Separate property
and the right to receive their own earning
would afford greater security against bad treat
ment The slow progress of legislative reform
on this subject was attributable to the fact tina
General Assemblies were composed chiefly o
married men, and it was apparent that the grea
body of this class of citizens were determined
not only TO possess wives, but nlso to apprOpri
ate to themselves everything which their wive
possess
Mr.. Cuppy cOncurred with Mr.. Key.
The motion to strike out all after the enact
ing clause was carried.