Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1861-03-01
OHIO LEGISLATURE.
ADJOURNED SESSION.
SENATE. ~
TauRsDAY, Feb, 2S, II
AFTERNOON sEssIl

Aschll Oh tne Oenhto was nhuD W0eu twenty
six Senators answered to their names, and sew
eral ofthe absentees soon appearing within the
bar, all further proceedings under the call were
dispensed with
The President announced that tho Senate had
under consideration s. b. No. 232-Concern-
ing the rights and liabilities Of married wo.
men. atn Ups
Mr.. MOORE took the floor aud opposed the
passage Of the bill. He thought its provisions,
If enacted into law, would create discord
and contentious in families--that it destroyed
the oneness which should exist between man and
wife, lie quoted from the Bible literally to
sustain his views of the family relations, and
claimed that the provisions OF the bill under
consideration were in direct violation Cf the liws
Of God. In his opinion, If passed, 1t would lead
to litigation between man and wife, and TO end
less frauds. He most earnestly opposed that
feature Of the bill which makes husband q
witness against his wife, or the wife against her
husband, in cases where fraud is suspected.
The law now existing he thought quite suffi
cient to protect the rights and promote the in.
terests Of married women.
Mr.. COX said the argument Of the Senator
from Butler had seemed to him inconsistent
He had quoted Scripture to prove "headship"
Of the husband, which, as he Argued, was abso-
lutte, giving despotio control over person and
property. Yet, before closing bis speech, he
admitted that he thought the very great modi6
cations from such doctrine found in modern
statutes we're just and beneficial. As to the
Scripture argument, Mr.. c. said, tiffany attempt
was made to warp particular passages Of Holy
Writ to the support Of injustice and oppression,
the Interpretation is shown to be false by its
contradiction of the golden rule. No Scripture
can rightly be made to support selfishness and
wrong. II the thing complained of be not
wrong, the proof OF that fact will be more to the
point than mere quotation q
He insisted that the things sought to be cor
rected by the present bill were really evils and
such as called for legislative correction; that
the history of the world and the observation Of
intelligent statisticans proved that the time
had come when il was necessary 10 give to wo.
man greater facilities for controlling her own
property and using her own Industry, for the
advantage of her family, without an absolute
subservience to any despotic power. If the
despOtism is not exercised, 1t is useless If 1t is
exercised, 1t is an outrage. II the law gives
the. married woman the control of her own
property, the matter 10 left where the amount Of
control really given to the husband by toe wife
will be regulated by the confidence actually ex.
isting between them. ss
! He argued. further that discipline in business
economy, and that kind of thrift which is loud.
ly demanded in these times of general extrava-
ganee, could only be produced by placing re-
sponsibllity for the management of her own
property, and the proceeds of her iown labor,
upon the woman herself. g
Mr.. JONES congratulated the Senator fiom
Hamilton on the success of his effort thi morn.
ing as an "agitator" against the barbarous OPP
preston of the marriage relation. a, szfal1
He then referred to the provisions of the bill,
and claimed that much that had been said was
not german to the subject under consideration.
The first section provides that the real estate Of
the wife and personal property owned at mar
riage, or which may come to her after wards shall
be and remain her separate property. Mr.. J..
believed that, substantially, this was now SO.
cured to her by law. But If IL were not, he be-
lieyed il should be, and had no objection to that
provision of the bill $50
But that part of the bill which authorized the
wife to engage In business in her own name,
and compelled her, If her rights are to be as
serted In court, to bring suit In her own name,
he was utterly opposed to--opposed to II, be-
cause 1t invited the woman out of that eeclusion
of home which protected her from the tempta-
tiods of the world, the arts and tricks of trade;
tionate instructor of children. He objected
TO this provision, also, because 1t tended to vi
olate the great law of marriage, which declares
the husband and wife to be one flesh. This
rule, he argued, had not only the sanction Of
the "higher law" but all history proved 1t to
be absolutely Indispensable to the peace and
prosperity of society.
He referred to the fact that the Senator from
Hamilton had deduced the principle of the In.
dependence of the wife from the civil law, and
claimed that the law originated with people
who were strangers to the true Coda people
In the highest state Of civilization in ali that
pertained to science and art, but were, never
theless, In all that related to modesty and yir.
tue, infinitely inferior to the people who origi-
mated and perfected the common law The Sen.
ator from Hamilton had drawn contrast be-
tween these two systems Of Jurisprudence. Mr.
]. challenged comparison of the two, and re-
ferred TO the present condition of the countries
In which they originated, and the colonies they
had established, and challenged comparison of
the merits of each, as illustrated in the virtue,
intelligence and prosperity of the people who
had adopted the great principle Of the common
law. li1t...f o.s
The difference, Mr.. ]. contended, was, that
while the one system was the work of people
who knew not God, and we're therefore ignorant
Of the great principles of moral right, the other
had been moulded and perfected by a people
who recognized the only true rule of moral eth.
ics-that which was commanded to man By the
great Lawgiyer of the world. vlssri. m,
Mr.. j. would not deny but that many OF the
provisions of the common law, 10 regard to
married women, had been unnecessarily severe;
but the great principle recognized In that law,
rs proclaimed also in the higher law, "for this
cause shall man leave father and motheraud
cleave TO his wife, and the twain shall be one
flesh, were, in his opinion, an explanation of
The virtue, the prosperity and the happiness Of
The people who live under that law. fres9
He referred TO the provisions of the bill in
ietail, insisting that under IL the wife could
carry on business in her own name aud avail
nerself Of all It's profits against the creditors Of
he husband, though the husband had during |
ts continuance supported her and her children.
Mr. J. closed by repeating his main objection |
% the principle Of the bill--separatin the in |
crest Of husband and wife, whIcu though 1t
night In exceptional cases appear TO produce |
rood results, would in the end tend 60 destroy |
hat unity of interest In families which was |
low, as 1t ever had been, the foundation Of or
Ter In government, and Of peace, virtue and
,rosperity in community. lf4a. An
Mr.. PARISH began by saying that the bill |
efore the Senate was likely 10 be prejudiced,
erhaps, in the minds Of SENATOR'S, By connect.
ng IL with what has been known as the HWo-
lGn's Rights Movement" lie wished II undet-
TODD that he. never had any connection with
rat enterpfise-pever having attended their
leetinga. The bill which was before the Sem.
te at the last session was introduced by him
IL without Conference with any one He was