Litchfield enquirer., 1870-03-17

| his will, to remain single, and not subject stepj jdtbsr, to waste her substance, and thereby render her less able to support and educate them" la at.s s+@sfsl., ee z.essz If the normal condition of woman is that of dependence on man, is not the forcing independence upon her, when she has not only herself but small children to l support, rather poor style Of '' encour. agement?" A widower with small chil- dren. soon begins to look out for, and his friends to suggest, another wife, to take care of those children and stop " the waste of his substance. Now if the male is the natural {" bread.winner' for both sexes, how happens it that step-mother is such nice thing to have, and step-fsther such nuisance, in bereayed family?
 The harshness of the common law to- wards married women, and the injustice of it's provisions regarding their property, are universally conceded. The modern legis- lation of Connecticut on that subject is in- deed an Improvement. in that it does rec ognize tue principle that married woman may have property rights; but, as system 1t is irredeemably vicious from the fact that it is based on the common law theory of dependence. Connecticut is to-day practically behind England in that regard. TEa ~1o Sn% hot not only contrived the semi-independence of the separate property system, but they take full advantage of that system. Here,
 the long opposition of our courts, and the continued neglect of our legislature, have prevented it from ever taking root in the habits of society. The independent con- trol of their property granted married women in adjoining states far exceeds that conceded in England, yet we hear no com plaint of it's practical workings. It can no longer be denied that reform took wrong direction, with us, in 1849. Having two existing models before us-that of the old common law, based on dependence, and that of the equity law with it's underlying principle of independence-we chose the former. Our want of familiarity with the latter and better system easily accounts for our mistake; but in view of the great progress society and legislation have since been making our continuance in that error is inexcusable. s.-.,,.,.. ..... B.. .t...~-. 1 Aside from the fundamental defect at the root of existing legislation there are many serious faults of detail While continuing the wife's dependence, the present law professes to offer her protection; but it 1 turns out, on examination, that the pro.
 lection offered is of the most imperfect de- scription. No trustee. executor, parent, or guardian. can take possession. of the property of his trust without first execut- ing bond to secure the faithful perform ance of his duty, and then filing in court an exact inventory of the property receiy- ed. The husband, however, though nam ed "trustee" in the statute, takes the prop erty of his wife, ou marriage, without giv- ing any bond to secure it's safe custody, or
 returning any inventory to show itf amount. Starting in married life without any security far her husbands perform. ance of his trust, the wife can only attain such security through the subsequent, hos tile proceeding of petition against him in court-a mode of legal defence excel
 lentIy calculated to ''shut the stable door after the horse is stolen" So. too. in the statute provisions regarding the reinyest- ment of her property, the husband has been given the most absurd latitude fol
 over.reaching the wife he holds in tutelage. Although the huSband's inte
 rest in the wife's real estate is carefully exempted from attachment in suits agains
 him, he still has the right to deed it to Q stranger for the term of his natural life
 In fact. much greater care is taken to pro. tect the wife's property against the hus
 bands debts. than against the husband himself; and it is not surprising that, prac. tically, the present law cheats the married mans creditors oftener than it protects his i wife. .-....-. .-...... e... No argument can be, needed to demon. strate the atrocious injustice of our pres ent law of succession between h usband and wife. Not only does the surviving husband take three times as much as the surviving wife. but the former holds, his interest securely, whereas most, in fact all. of the widows share is defeasible at the option of the husband, and often tagged with degrading prohibition of remarri- age. The common law presents 2 very hu- 1 initiating contrast in that, as in most rec spects regarding marriage, with the co orres- bonding branch of the jurisprudence of Continental Europe. Just as every travel Ter observes the selfish brutality of the English as compared with the French or German husband of the lower, class ,the law yer cannot but be struck with the harsh ness of the common law (intensifed as it is in Connecticut by our peculiar law of doDer) as compared with the Continental system of community of profits be. |