Litchfield enquirer., 1870-03-03

be the law of the land? The previous history of political progress answers this question. Such is the selfshness of hu- manity that those who gain by great abu- ses, can never be trusted to remedy those ab1se& They can never be brought to
 give them careful consideration, even. If any imagine that slavery would have been abolished, or negro suffrage established, had there been no manifest military or po- itical advantage to accrue to those abol- ishing the one, or establishing the other,
 they are laboring under delusion.
 The theory of universal suffrage is based on the great lesson of all political experi- ence-that only those who suffer from abuses will ever thoroughly remedy them. The history of the legislation of the last quarter of century regarding the law Of marriage, forms no exception to the gene- ral rule. None of those statute allevia- tions of the harshness of the common law have reached the root of the -evil-the ab- solute personal dependence of the wife on the husband. The tenderness with which legislatures treat this sole remaining relic of scheme of dependence, o&ce general, is truly wonderful, especially as contrasted with the root-and-branch work that has been made with every system of male tu- telage In the fundamental rule of the wife's personal subiection-the most important branch of this subject, and the only one yet considered-no reform has been even attempted. In many states the property rights of married women have been placed on 8 footing approximating to equality. In none has her personal liberty been se- cured, or her legal servitude alleviated, ex- cept in the most superficial, we might just ly say wnintsnfiOnal manner. Yet it must be perfectly obvious that personal rights must precede property rights to render the latter of any real avail; the securing of "separate" property to one under strict tutelage to legal master, is not the tn or ough work legislators make when they remedy abuses under the sharp eye of the suffering vOter. An amusing instance of the superficial way in which this subject has been treated, has appeared of late in the journals opposed to female suffrage: It was gravely afr med that in several states, where the husband was living in his wifes house. she had the legal power to turn him out into the street. Yet the husband, as we have seen, would in such case have the legal right to take his wife with him by force, could compel her to remain with him, living in the manner suitable to Ais condition, and could put her into actual confinement if she manifested disposi- tion to " elope."
 In addition to the fact that those who gain by an abuse cannot be trusted with its remedy, the history of civilization also teaches us that dependence exerts its evil influence on the dominant as we'll as on the subject class Where the power of the master is great, and the rights of the ser want few and i'll secured, as we have seen the case to be under the law of marriage, there grows up habit of subserviency in the latter, that practically units her for vindicating lthe few rights the law really comedies. The duty of implicit obedience is enforced on the wife till that. very re- mote point is reached where forbearance ceases to be a virtue. Then she is expect cd to throw of habits of subjection, per- haps the growth of years, and fight great battle. under every disadvantage, against enc to whom she has been taught to look up as her "head, even as Christ is the head of the Church" That, under such circumstances. she fails to do her duty oft ener than she performs it, is less her fault than the fault of society, of the law, of the church We firmly believe that it is to the fact that woman is in general dependent before marriage, and a servant after mar riage. that the social evils now exciting so much attention are due. No less an au- thOrity than Mir. Lecky asserts that with the male portion of modern civilized soci ety, unchastity is the rule, chastity the ex- ception. while with the female. the case is | just the reverse. The reason of this differ ence is obvious; man is independent, and can hold woman to very strict account; woman is dependent. and cannot demand of him that personal purity he requires of her. Man will never enforce chastity on man. Occasionally, indeed, some male sinner who has interfered with the female property of some other male sinner, may be brought to justice according to law, or more generally contrary to law. But here, it must be observed, it is not personal pu- rity that is enforced-it is only the punish ment of trespass on vested rights. Make woman independent, and she will soon find a way of enforcing upon man all that he requires of her. Does any one imagine that a husband has hatred of impurity that a wife has not? Not all the teachings of society can overcome her loathing of it.
 Yet every thing conspiies against her. Both nature and religion enioin matrimo- eNaraolv onv oflar xvorth~, ;,