Litchfield enquirer., 1869-01-07
GEO. A. HICKOX, EDITOR.
The Legal Rights of Married woms

GEO. A. HICKOX, EDITOR.
 The Legal Rights of Married Women.
 The Waterbury American publishes. last week, a long reply to statement we made sometime since, regarding what we consid- CT the injustice of Connecticut law toward married women. We should be sorry to become involved in any serious difficulty with journal friendly to Woman's Suff- rage, regarding this matter; but the Amer ica, has SC, entirely mistaken us, and so entirely mistaken the law, that we must en deavor to set it right. It's article commen- ees thus:-
 By request of lady, the Litchfeld Enquirer re- prints whatit calls an abstract of the Connecti- cut laws relating to married women" The indig nation of the lady would be just if the so-called abstracts were correct, but our statute laws must have been either misunderstood or grossly mis- construed for the purpose of making matter which is not altogether, good, and honest, and equable-still worse.
 Here is 9 serious mistake to begin with. We have never attempted, technically speaking, any abstract of the Connecti- cut laws relating to married women." The above sentence is quoted, not from our ed itofial, but from the lady's letter, The original article to. which the lady referred. and from which we made the extract that attracted the attention of the Anserican, was upon our divorce law. We argued that .:lbefore the marriage relation was made more permanent, it should be made more iast, and we prefaced the statement to which the American objects, as follows:- s.Let us briefly set forth few of the worst features of our present code of laws on that subject Y :
 Having thus shown what it was that we attempted to do. let us see if we have done it correctly: f524Ns .ssi.7s'.
 "1. married woman guilty of infideiity, ia punished by Imprisonment ill the State prison mo less than two years. A married man guilty of in. fidelity (ezcept with married woman, is punish ed by fine not erceedtng seven dollars by i'm thirty dayslv a3A1
 but the Enquirer forgets that in accordance with the, laws upon the, statute books, in6delity in a married man is punished in precisely tho same mar manner as ln woman if both parties arc mar married, then the iwronged wife may immediately obtain divorce, &c.s Ea@s
 Did we not make in parenthesis the very exception the American charges us with for getting? Can any ingenuity argue out of sight Ghlackness" of the injustice that allows a brothel-hannting husband to es- cape with n slight fine, while for the first lapse from virtue the wife may be sent to the State Prison not Jess than two years As regards divorce, that is remedy equal ly open to both parties; and here let us say, that our divorce law is unusually libe- ral towards woman. and one with which we have never found fault. The American sets up as a defence of our adultery statute the fact that women make the same distinction. socially, against their own sex. It is un- doubtedly true that no man of any respect ability will lsn singly marry an unchaste. woman, while many respectable women knowingly marry unchaste men. We att tribute this fact to tho dependent condition in which oar laws and social customs place woman. The husband chooses the wife, controls the purse, is the business partner of tief firm; the wife waits to be chosen, has no legal control of property or family, in fact, scarcely any legal existence what erero Hence the husband is in condi- tion tollemand of the wife what she is. in do condition to demand of him. That woman hates unchastity, she shows. in her conduct towards her own sex; she cannot show her hatred of 1t in man, because she is dependent on him,
 s.2. The husband can in this State convey away al his real estate without his wife's consent, and cut her off at his death from every cent of his proper ty2 In Iso other State in the Union can this bt
 This can only be done by the husbands deedins away as g all his real estate sometime beore h decedse, and few men can De found who would bt willing to run such risk, no matter what provo. cation theyimay have had In fact it was rleye, known to have been done but once in the history of this State-and that was when Q young wife ac. knowledged to have married her husband (whc was an old ian merely for the sake of getting his money, and who notorionsly misbehaved alter marriage. e5fft tH6
 If the husband receives any thing for she real estate lie conveys, the wife loses her dover fo, tye but she gafhs her own third or one half in the personal estate Joreoea' to her o,os ,sse The American has entirely mistaken both law and fact A husband in this State can at any time sell his real estate without his vife's signing the deed; he can then cut her off without n cent by will. She takes third of his personal property only in case he dies without will. How common such P course of proceeding may be, we are unable to state; but an instance land not the one mentioned by the Americaa) happened in this village within the pas, i've years, and we presume it is not of un. common occurrence. =
 The third statement begins with three an8 mn. half lines which are untrue: ~z While the wife has no right to any no,,t;op o her husbands property during his life. and ma, be,cht of from any portion of his estate nstar nj; deatbf the husband Immediately on the .marraga takes possession of all her property and keens nos session during his life, only giving inc nrinc;na thereof to her or her heirs at his death helhusband is compelled if he has anv ,,ro,,a.,, to pay all of his wfes dcbts and if he Sails td nrs vide for her support according to their station i, life, sh6 call compel 1t by several methods know to our cOurtS sss iss A1sf sSt tss ss V