Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1869-08-18


wOman's Rights. ,,,o;-.fu
From the Baltimore sun.l '"'@t W.
Should the claim which has been set
up in behalf of woman by some Of her
self-constituted champions to o perfect
equality of rights and privileges with
man, including equal participation in
the business of making and administer.
ing the laws, prove successful, it has been
suggested that those laws, in several i'm
portant particulars, will require modifi-
cation. For example, actions against
men for dishonorably iDjuring women
can hardly retain; their, place in our sys-
tenn of Jurisprudence when woman is
recognized as capable not only of self
government abut Of ,legislatively govern
ing man., The principle ofthese actions
lies in the assumption of woman being
the weaker vessel She is represented
in the relations of the sexes as playing
mostly passive part a Her will is the
weakest; she is the victim, man the de-
stroyer. The old common law action to
whichithe father was entitled, in such
canes, for the wfopg done his daughter
proceeded upon the theory that be, had
been deprived by the defendant 8 act Of
her services. In the old treatises on
pleading the action IL called an action
on the case per guod serpitium ansisik'
1t was the same action that man had for
the wrongful wounding or maltreating or
abducting Of his apprentice or hired man.
Still more "self.degrading" in the eyes
of a correspondent of the New York
Times are those suits for damages
brought by the injured woman in which
she seeks to recover pecuniary compen-
sstion for the loss of virtue and homer.
Doubtless the damages which are awarded
in such cases are usually prompted by a
desire to punish the base setrayer of trust
ing Innocence and sHection.o But what
becomes Of thu theory of womsn's
equality in such case = Of her ca
pacity uto1v take care Of herself 2
Does not the, very fact that such an
action may be brought, imply that in the
eye of the law and in the eye of society
woman is, as we have said, the weaker
vessel, liable to be imposed upon and
betrayed, and needing the strong protee-
ton of the law for her vipdicatiou and
redress? And upon the theory Of our
advocates Of woman's rights, why should
not there be q reciprocal right Of action
as we'll for unsuspecting innocence with
beard that falls o prey TO female arts
and wiles? Suppose virtue less robust
than Joseph's succumbs to temptation,
does not equality require that there
should be an action against Mrs. Potiphar
for damages? But, seriously-and it is
only seriously that such subject should
be treated-is it not disgrace and blot
upon our existing systems of jurispru
.dence that there should be no other pun
ishment for crime which is frsugbt with
the, most injurious consequence to
society, ss well as rninous to individual
happiness, than q shameless suit for
pecuuiary damages ~ m1aN a9aioh
Z a Ordinarily such claims are prosecuted
under cover, of o suit for breach of prom
ise of marriage. Even when moral ruin
10 not feature 10 the case, and is not re-
lied upon in ageravation of damages,
such actions imply O totally different
view, of the relations of the sexes from
that which our modern, woman's rights
reformers are seeking to enforce. Le-
gally, man may have his action for
breach of promise as well asa woman,
but any man who should bring such q
suit would only get the laughter Of the
community for bis pains Yet, women
bring such actions every day, and some,
times, as in the Craig-Sprsgue case 10
Illinois, have enormous damages awarded
them by juries. And the foundation Of
such actions, according tetan eminent
Judge, is the right of q woman who, in |
conseq q uence of a mans proposals of mar
risge, loses her time. and il may be other
fair opportunities Of settlement, to have
pecuniary compensation for, her loss
We commend the subject to the conside-
ration of the next woman's rights conven-
ton, in the hope of elicitiug an express
sion of opinion upon o question which
involves a practical test Of the theoreti-
cal equality oftbe sexes. q 'f.4'.'.'l'