Litchfield enquirer., 1870-07-21
MARRIED. WOMEN's PROPERTY.
FINAL DEBATE.

The final debate on the Married Wo- mems Pro perty bill, came off in the House on the 18th, and resulted in the indefinite postponement of the bill. The following is as full report of the debate as we can fnd:- -..------.
 The order of the day the same being the bill to protect married women in the en- joyment of their property Heretofore dis cussed and amended in the House) was ta- ken up. (We have heretofore published the bill in fulD. It was amended in the House so that 1t should not apply except to women hereafter married The ques- tion before the House is to reconsider the vote passing the amendment.
 MT. Eaton, of Hartford, said that if the vote was reconsidered, he would offer an amendment-although he did not consider it right, yet to avoid difficulties in the minds of some legal gentlemen in the House, he would offer an amendment that the bill shall effect only women married since June 20, 1849 the time when the change in the laws began. He did not like l to be compelled to offer it. but to quiet ob- jections would do it, if the vote was re- considered.
 1 Mir. Seymour, of Litchfeld, said he was sorry he could not favor MT. Eaton's pro- posed amendment. He did not think MT. Eaton's amendment would favor the obiec- tions which he Mr. Seymour) made the other day. His objection was that the bill was retroactive at all. MT. Seymour con- tended that while in one sense marriage was more than 8 civil contract, yet so far as the Legislature ill it's dealing with the subject is concerned, it is but civil agree ] nt hnfr o,o1 A TT I from " Bishop on Marriage and Divorce" to establish this point If this be so, then parties who contract for marriage make contract regarding her property in accord, ance with law, and the husband therefore acquires vested rights in that property. If that be so, is it competent for the Legisla- ture to take away those vested rights? As to the case of divorces remanding the wife to her former rights released from the con- trol of her husband, he read from Judge Story in the eighth of Connecticut, claim ling that that Case put 1t upon the ground of forfeiture. Although it is competent for courts Tn given case to grant a di- vOrce and dissolve rights, it by no means follows that a sweeping law may be made to dissolve rights.
 Mir. Olmsted did not understand that this bill touched the vested rights of husband. He did not propose to interfere : with what the husband had gained from rents and profits of the wife's property, but she should have the control of her original property. If the court would up- hold the law, then give the married women the benefit of it. It is relic of feudal times, and he would have it wiped out from our statute book.
 MT. Doolittle of New Haven, said that an objection to this bill had been made by MT. Morris of New Haven, that it did not require women to take care of their chil- dren. The law at present required this. Many men had been forced to support their children by being committed to the aims house. No woman had been so forced, for God had implanted in the female breast love for her children, and she will work her hands off to support them. ! MT. Morris, of New Haven, said he should not reply, for under the present question, such discussion is not pertinent. l Mir. Hall, of Windham, was opposed to reconsideration of the amendment. We have no power to dissolve vested rights. He read number of cases in the 2d of Kernan's reports, New York Court of Ap- peals, one of which was where it was held that the personal property of wife mar ried before the law of 1848, was the hus- bands Ill spite of the law, that the law could not be retroactive, and that proper ty in possession, or that the possession of which he had right to acquire, were both vested rights, and could not be disturbed, as it would be impairing the obligation of control, and contrary to the constitution