Delaware State journal and statesman., 1863-01-09

uruN hCtlOht WIN u ullu unH HAou pulFodp hoN-
ever, MS will lead to full aud thorough invest
CATION for the purpose of ascertnning the eau
and motives which induced the General Govern
ment TO resort to the most extraordinary actiuu
Of placing United States forces at the polls on
the day Of the election.
For the prevention Of like occurrences in ia
ture, also recommend to your favorable cous
deraton the passage Of suitable act, making Is
a highly peHal offence for any person or persoo-
to be at or within one mile of any election hrld
10 this State, either commanding au armed force
or being commanded as such whether they be OF
the United States forces or from any other Stale,
or belonging to our own, every such offence to be
made indictabe in some proper Court, and pun
ishable with fine and Imprisonment; and aisu
prohibiting all persons fron carrying or having
about them any arms, or other deadly weapons.
on the day Of such election within mile oil
the place thereof under like penalty. We now
have statute which prohibits the calling out 0l |
the militia, either on the day Of the election ot
within ten days previous thereto, or within three |
days thereafter, under peaalty of one thousand
dollars but this act applies more particularly |
70 the militia Of the State, aud perhaps does not
reach the case Of the appearance of troops among
us from without the State, which was never con
tempated by any constitutional or lawful aI-
thority, aud therefore not guarded against ly
the legislature of the State.
have been informed, though not in any oti
CHI chpncltls tuut tdtBe uutnDeI OF lnt ciVLena
of this State have organizsd themselves into mil
itary companies aud been mustered into the ser
vioe of the United States MS "Home Guards, by
orders from the War Department. II is also
stated that these Home Guards are not to be sem
beyond the limits OF the State. Whether any oi
these companies have been supplied with arms
by the General Government l cannot say, but
have been told such is the fact Certain il is
that numbers Of them have been furnished with
uniforms at the expense Of tue Ubited States.
For what purpose or by what authority of Law
these ooalled Home Guards have been thus or
Ranized, am totally at loss to determine
The third Section of the Act of Congress, appro.
we'd February l3, 1852, and entitled "An Act
making an appropriation Tor completing the de-
fences of Washington and for other purposes"
declares " That no volunteers militia from
stany State or territory shall be mustered into
g the service Of the United States on any terms
or conditions confnng their service to the
- limits of said State or territory their yieni
ties, beyond the number Of thousand in the
a. State of Missouri and four thousand five hun.
+" dred in the State of Maryland, heretofore AT
thorized by the President of the United States
"or Secretary of War to be raised in said
"States" From this it will be seen that amy
promise or stipulation made 10 those OF our cti-
zens who have enlisted as Home Guards, thar
they are not liable to be sent beyond ihefState
is contrary to law, and therefore o nulliiy.-
EOr eau luese ultu De relulrtu Tor nome
protection, as we have nothing of danger
TO apprehend from invasion from without or re-
bellion within. More especially is it a matter tot
wonder that the organization OF these companies
should be favored and encouraged by the Gene
raj Government when we reflect that many Of the
volunteer companies which were formed fol
State defence at the commencement Of the diff
oulties which now distract the country, under
and in accordance with the provisions OF oul
State laws, and were furnished with arms be
longing to the State, were, by persons acting OF
pretending to act by authority OF the Genera
Government disarmed, and some of the member.
taken from their homes and carried beyond til,
limits of the State as prieoners-and this 100 a
time when an Invasion Of our State might hav,
been reasonably apprehended.
have felt it my duty to call your attention /,
this matter in order that you may, after aseer
tanning fully the facts, take such action III rela
ton thereto as in your judgement and wisdom
you may deem right and proper.
would also most respectfully suggest fo
your consideration tho passage of a suitable Law
to protect the property Of married women from
the debts of their husbands. BY the existipl
law, marriage invests husbands with the absolute
right to all the mOyeable property Of their wives
and gives them also qualified property in debt
due to them, to what are called 10 legal phrase
chooses in action. They have also an esiat
during the life Of their wives in their inheriubl
life in case there is issue Of the marriage bon
alive ,apgble of inherting the property from III
lin ether Worus, where the vile is seize
at the time of the marriage, or becomes SO whit
il continues, Of an estate in fee simple or fee tn
aud there is issue Of the marriage capable of ia
herlting, the husband is entitled to an estat
therein for his own life ns tenant By The couftes
and the same may be seized and sold for the nav
ment of his debts
Ii the proposition were entirely new the Exc
eutivs can see no reasonable objection TO il
adoption, but when it is considered that most i
the other States of the UDiun if not all hay
laws similar to the one now recommended, ther
seems to be no Just ground for adhering to the la,
as it is in this State. We all know that too man
marriages improvident and result in depriyin
wives of their property to answer the demands Z
creditors against the hpendthritt husbands
is but right and proper, Of course, that the prt
perty Of the wife us well as that Of the husban
should be used for the support of the commo
family but it IL not essential 10 this that
creditor of the husband should have the MOVE
TO appropriate 1t to the payment of his deb
pilhom The toifes consent Where that consel
should be given, it doubiless will not he withhel
by her, but she should be so far shielded by III
law that her property eau not be taken ava
from her and her children against her own frt
will. The details Of such measure and the g,
tent to which il should go are matters for yo,
sh uld suggest them l cannot however, tr
earnestly urge upon you the main purpose whic
commends itself from consideration ons Of the bipl
est humanity, and does mot seem to be opposf
ny any strong counteryAiling argument or il
tuences, although it is true that extrayagal
wives sometimes involve their husbands ar
create the debts for which their property may
taken.
would also recommend the repeal of the Ia
providing for inquisiton upon land before sa
on Judgements, 10 determine whether ihey wi
rent for sum sufficient, beyond all reprses,
pay the liens against them ia seven years, and
substitute therefor provision Tor the sale by II
sheriff of such part OF them only es will
necessary to pay such debts. The operation
the present system is very injurious to both deb
or and creditors 10 the former id turning hi
and his family out Of doors until the uehts nj
paid, and to the latter in hlising him to whit
his debts until he realize 1t from the rem
and pruhs Of the land whereas under the nj.
proposed part could he sold TO pay the cre.i
ors their money, leaving the debtor where all ii
land was mot required as it would not be in ar
case where the rents for seven years would sati
fy the debt, in possession of H pnrt Of il for II
maintenance OF himself aud his family.
This feature Of our law, Ike that hefnre i,
ferred to- comes to us from our English anoes,o
as part Of the common law, with this ditlerene
that by it no sale whatever could he made. NJ
the creditor cou d only reach the rents nr
profits Of Qnt-ha'f OF the real estate. But II
reason lor such statute does not npply her
There the policy was and yet is to secure re-
property in the hands Of its owners for reaso,
0fstate; here, GU the contrary, the policy
making II circulate as vel as other property pr