Litchfield enquirer., 1870-07-14
MARRIED WOMEN's PROPERTY.
DEBATE IN THE LEGISLATURE.

We append the fullest report, we have been able to find, of the debate ina the House, on this important question, which commenced on Wednesday, the 29th ult:-
 This bill being the special order, was ta- ken up at twelve o'clock. -.- ....
 MT. Doolittle moved to amend so that bequests by husband to wife or wife to husband, shall be in lieu of dover, as by law now provided; also so that in case of no surviving children, the surviving party have the use of one half the estate of the deceased. These amendments were ac- cepted by the committee.
 MT. Eaton regretted that this bill had not come up earlier. He regarded it as one of the most important of the session. For twenty years the legislation of Con- necticut has been gradually stepping to this point. Repeatedly the legislature had done something towards giving woman her riqhts. In speaking of woman's rights, he was not talking of social privileges, but the rights of common humanity. Even the common law of England, coming down from the feudal ages, failed utterly to do justice to woman. New York and Massa- chusetts had done justice. This bill does not go so far as the law of New York. The principle that woman had right to her own property as she has to her life, would commend itself to every man in the House. Has not woman the same right to life, to DOT lection of her person, to protection of her property, that man has? In the mat ter of rights there should be no distinc- tion between the sexes. The question of privileges was different matter. First settle the question whether it IS right be- longing to humanity, and then let any man say, if he can, that he has right which does not belong to woman. The main feature of this bill is Radical. It embodied an opinion long entertained by him. The majority of the committee say in this bill that woman has right to her property. Who says she has not? New York goes farther than this bill, and allows a woman full control of her property. He would not discuss that point. It was not proposed here to go that far. Suppose that 8 married woman owns house on one of the corners of two streets, and wishes to sell it; if her husband declines to con sent she can go to the Superior Court and obtain permission to sell. For the present he would go no further than this. Wo- men in this State were under pupilage in this matter; five years hence, 1t would be expedient to remove all constraint The right of a woman to her property was one of the natural rights, and not social pri- vilege. The reason why the right was not conceded five hundred years ago, was. because she was regarded as the inferior of man. There was a time when she was regarded as but a chattel. He asked that this legislature de- cree the equality of woman with man. Whatever opinions were entertalned on the suffrage question, he hoped this mat ter would be considered separate from that He was opposed to woman suffrage because he wanted peace at home. ana ms wife didn't want to vote. A married wo- man dies, leaving $100,0 ,00O. If she leaves children, the husband has the use of one third of her property for life. The bus. band and wife were equal, and they should be placed upon an equality in this re- spect It must commend itself as right. In New York, they had legislated to the advantage of the woman, which the com mittee did not think right. Cases might be cited where there would be hardship on one side or the other. It was inevitable in the adoption of great principle. There were hardships now, as every judge of pro- bate knows. But this bill puts them up on an equality. He desired the passage of this bill as representative of the peo- pie, because it secures right to your wife and daughters and mine. It was said that it would cause difficulties in families He should not be surprised; there had always been trouble in families. This will not be put forward as a panacea against the ca price of woman or violence of man. But without this bill a wrong would be done to woman. He hoped this Assembly would pass the bill; it would be passed, if not now, then in the future. The wedge was entered in 1S49, He desired for one tc vote personally to give woman her rights to be one of the men to take the respon. sibility of doing right in this matter-tc cut up the old fraud upon the rights o1 woman. He concluded with an appeal that amendments should not be made touching the principle of the bill; rather let the bill be defeated. Let the princi
 pie stand that woman is tue equal of man
 The first section provides that all proper ty of married women, from whatever source derived, and the income thereof, shall bt hers. There is little monitor in tht breast of every member that tells him i
 is right. He hoped the House was ore
 pared to do justice to that sex which WI all love, honor and esteem.
 l MT. Seymour of Litchfeld, regretted tt differ with his friend from Hartford, bu
 it was question whether such bil should be passed. He believed the prin ciple, as stated by Mir. Eaton, to be right
 but did not think the law should affect ex
 isting marriages. He proposed to offer ar amendment touching this point. Ther, are thousands of existing marriages b. which property rights have been acquired
 The law of 1S49 provided it should onl. operate in the future. They ought not t'
 make law which should affect propert,
 thus acquired by existing marriages. H' did not believe the courts would sustain such law. He did not think it good pol icy, if they would. Lifelong custom ought to be taken into consideration. Fl,
 felt bound to eater his protest against tho
 passage of a bill to affect couples married
 before 1S49. He offered an amendment
 making the bill applicable only to future
 marriage and to property acquired by married women in the future, which he
 advocated as just and right. If thil amendment was adopted, he should b' ready to strike out the requirement tha
 the wife must go to court to get liberty te
 sell property against the consent of hel
 husband. He thought this plan would
 lead to much strife. He regarded hi amendment as the fundamental objection to the bill +s | @
 MT. Doolittle said that Mr. Seymour wa,
 true to his nature when he admits that th'