The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-07-22

WnOm, In turn, General Irant contemporary |
dismissed ? Such being his antecedents,
aside, we repeat, from all question of fitness,
the President did the most natural thing in
the world when, at the instance of dear
and common friend, he sent him to England
1t is true Mr.. Fish trusted him with no
work, which rather enhances the injustice
done him now. He had nothing to do, and
he did it thoroughly. He mourned with Lord
Muncaster He lunched the King of the
Belgians. He religiously wore black coat
at Windsor and Buckingham Palace. He
escorted poor Mr.. Peabody to Plymouth. He
attended the Dickens obsequies. In short,
what he had to do he did, and his reward is
disgrace: and Mr.. Frederick Frelinghuysen,
who never wrote a book, but is sensible,
practical man, goes in his place. New Jersey
supersedes New England Massachusetts, is
aghast at the slaughter of her innocents: but
what cares he of the silent tongue? He
Furnishes his enemies and is conteIt.
PROPERTY OF MARRIED WOMEN.
From the NJ Y. EUentng Mail.
case which forcibly illustrates the neces-
sity of a change in some of the laws relating
to the property of married women has Just
been decided in Newark, n. j. The facts in
the case appear to be as follows:-Several
years ago a young lady of many personal
attractions married person whose name it
is not necessary to mention-a man without
means and of anything but industrious
habits. The wife had accumulated
small property, and was known as
woman of great business energy and tact
The husband, as time wore on, gradually
fell into habits of entire Incidence, failing to
provide for himself and wife, and exhibiting
an indifference, 1t is said, to her happiness
which altogether alienated her affections
Finally, this condition of affairs becoming
intolerable, the wife proposed separation,
agreeing to give the husband the sum of
$2500 if he would quit the home she had
earned, and leave her to make her own way
without incumbrance. The husband promptly
accepted the offer, and the separation
was effected, with the understanding that it
was to be absolute and final. Thus relieved,
the wife addressed herself with increased
energy to the business she had established,
finding supreme satisfaction in the thought
that whatever she might earn, whether little
or much, would be all her own and could not
be squandered in riotous living by any per-
son claiming to exercise authority over her
acts.
The womans hopes, however, of peace
full and prosperous future suffered sudden
blight. In the month of March last she sick
ened, and, after brief illness, died. After
her death it was found that she had made a
will. in which she bequeathed her property to
others than her husband, the greater portion
being given to her parents. The husband at
once filed caveat against the WILL claiming
the right to administer upon the estate. The
case was deliberately argued, and recently
the court gave final opinion, setting aside
the will on the ground that married woman
has no legal right to dispose of her property
without the consent of her husband.
This is, no doubt, New Jersey law, but we
submit that it is not justice. If a woman
who by her industry secures competency
r. 80
dolence of her husband, cannot dispose of
her own estate or protect her own children
from want, after the husband has formally
and absolutely abdicated all claim over her
as his wife, it is certainly high time some
thing should be done TO invest her with
that authority. Under the New Jersey law a
married woman has no incentive, not even
the slightest, to loftiness and conservation of
purpose in the marital relation, no stimulus
whatever to providence and industry; she is
the mere slave of a taskmaster, against
whom, however brutal or inhuman, she
has no means of redress or defense. In the
case under consideration the wife is said to
have remarked to her physician, a day or
so before her decease, that she would rather
see her estate scattered to the winds than
that the man who had SO wronged her
and SO wrecked her life should receive
single penny of the fruits of her toll. But
under the law, invoked by the
husband instantly upon her decease, the
dominant and supreme desire of the woman
is wholly ignored, and every dollar of the
estate she had accumulated goes directly into
the possession of the person who, of all men
in the world, had the least right, in common
| Justice, to receive it.
Surely New Jersey has need to change her
laws in respect to the rights of married
women, if she would keep abreast of the
civilization of the age.
THE NEIrTRATJTY OF ENGLAND