Litchfield enquirer., 1870-07-14

< " the obligation of contracts. If this prin- ciple is wrong, the Supreme Court will say SO; but if sit:is right, it cannot be applied too soon. A second husband may enjoy the fruits of the industry of the first hus- band to the exclusion of the children of the latter. Mir. D. discussed the princi- pies of the bill, and explained the opera tion of the present law. The provision for going to the court in case of differ ence, for the protection of women; five or ten years hence, it may be best to strike tt ont. He had no sympathy with the move ment for the enfranchisement of women, but he would do absolute justice to all.
 Adjourned till Thursday, at 9119 a. m.
 The next day (Thursday) the debate was continued as follows:
 Mir. Olmstead called up the bill, and proceeded to remark on the question. It was the most important bill that had been in. troduced this session, and it should not be considered hastily. He concurred most heartily in most of MT. Eaton's remarks. Formerly, women were regarded as inferi- ors and treated accordingly. Before 1849 a single woman was free and in full con- trol of her property; but the moment she msrried, her husband entered upon full control of her property. The law of 1849 was Q step forward, but made the husband trustee. He could take the proceeds of his wife's property, and there was no way oi making him account for them. In Fairfield county it had been decided that wife must give up her property to her husband, and the wife was sent to jail because she refused. Ought a law under which such in justice could be done, to be permitted to remain on the statute book? It is a relic of barbarism. A married woman should not be divested of her power to make con- tracts the moment she became wife. He knew many divorces had arisen because marriages were sought by lazy and impe- cunious men with rich wives, for no other consideration. This sort of fortune hunt ing was encouraged by law. MT. Olmstead was opposed to Mir. Seymour's amendment excepting from the operation of the act o1 existing marriages. If the principles of the bill were right, those now married ought to have the advantage of it as well as those who shall marry hereafter. He was not in favor of the provision for allow ing the husband and wife to go into court to settle disputes about property. It would produce bad feeling. Still he would not move to strike ont his provision yet il might embarrass the bill. The action pro viding for the division of property in case of death, did not improve the condition o1 women. They now have the use of one third of the husbands real estate, and one third of the personal estate out and out. This fifth section contracts her rights in this respect. A cohple who started with nothing and accumulated fortune, had equal claims upon the estate. He instanc- ed cases where this bill would work injus- tice. He did not expect ever again to be member of the legislature. He had no aspirations that way, but he wished to aid in the passage of so important bla aftec- ting the rights of women. He would amend so that the survivor of Q married pair shall have one third of the personal estate out and out. (The bill provides for the use only of one third of the real and personal estate.)
 MT. Converse wanted to amend so as to give the bill an honest title. His amend ment was ruled out of order at the time.
 MT. Bacon agreed with the principles oi the bill as stated by MT. Eaton. It was to restore to woman some of her God-given rights. He favored the bill but objected to the section abolishing the right of dow CT in the wife. The right of dover secur- ed to the wife one-third the estate of her husband against creditors. In other States, the wife has right of dover in every foot of the land the husband ever possessed. In this state she has only right in the real estate of which the husband dies pos sessed. The husband could sell and de. prive the wife of her dover. This princi pie was already too much curtailed. He would not make an amendment, but threw out the objection as suggestion.
 Mr. Brewster regarded this bill as the most crude he ever saw on this subject. Il manifested ignorance of the law. He questioned the correctness of MT. Olm stead statement of the law as to the liabili. ty of the husband to answer for the avails of the wife's estate.
 Mr. Olmstead knew the law gave the wife the right, but it was seldem or never enforced.
 Mir. Brewster proceeded to state what Ii now the law, claiming that it had been misrepresented by the advocates of the bill He claimed that whatever was good in the bill was already the law. He in stanced the exemption of the wife's prop erty from the husbands debts, and the le gality of gifts of personal property from husband to wife. The provision for going to the courts ought to be labeled provis ion for family lawsuits. He agreed with MT. Seymour that the legislature could no disturb the existing rights of the husband and quoted to prove this as the principle of law. He denied the claim of Mir. Doc little that marriage was not contract
 The idea rested upon the opinion of a sin gle text writer. He did not think such {
 blll ought to be passed till the womer asked for it, and he knew of but one who had moved in the matter. MT. B. ques toned the correctness of MT. EatOn's claim that the right of property was nat ural right, and suffrage but social privi lege, and quoted Dr. Franklin in support of the claim that it IS right. If married
 women are made independent of thei
 husbands on property, they should have the ballot. He remarked that the trac circulated on the suffrage question mani tested ignorance of the real relations o married people under our law. The wife was not, as asserted, under physical sub jection to her husband. MT. Eaton would speak to the pendins amendment. At any other time he would try to reply to MT. Brewster, and shoult try to be courteous. It had been remark ed by Mir. Seymour that "public policy demanded that this amendment should bt passed. What is public policy? Public policy may be wrong, and the public poll cy of this State has been wrong for two hundred years. It is said this bill inter