Liberal Republican. [volume] (Dallas, Or.) 1872-1???, 1873-04-19
CONJUCAL RIGHTS.

| Inere seemed danger uhQer recent
decisions that there would be, in course
of time, absolutely no limit to the
"rights of wife and, as some would
say consequently, no limits to the
Responsibilities of the husband
BY recent opinion of the Supreme
Court in this State, however, it appears
that while the newly declared rights of
the wife, to trade and so forth, on
exactly equal terms with the husband,
are admitted, the Court decides that
| Justice is also due to the husband, 10
protecting him from responsibility
from what is comprehensively known
in law as the " torts of the wife.
The subject is an important one in
this period of transition, when the gener-
ally received notions as to marriage
rights are being overturned on every
side. The various decisions in the
| Cook County Courts, and the celebra>
brated decision of judge Blodgett, in
which he declared that he must accept
the new doctrine that wife Is entitled
TO trade as partner, either with her
husband or any one else, have been
given BY the Tribune, and we complete
the history of this new social reyolu-
ton by drawing attention to its latest
phase.
In the case under notice, Janet
Robson sued one John Martin for
sIanderous words used respecting her
by Margaret Martin j John wife In pro-
nouncng an opluion, on the case coming
up on appeal to the Supreme Court,
Judge Thornton for the Court, delivered
an elaborate opinion, holding that the
husband was not liable.
After considering the general ques-
ton of the removal ofthe disabilities of a
wife, His Honor proceeded:
LIABILITY
| which has for It's consideration rights
conferred should no longer exist when
the consideration has failed. If the
relations Of husband aud wife have
been so changed as to deprive him of
all rights to her property, and to the
control Of her person and her time,
every principal Of right would be viola>
ted, to hold him still responsible for
her conduct If she is cmancipated
he should no longer be enslaved For
the policy and wisdom Of the legisla-
ton which has effected q change so
radical, the Legislature alone is respon.
sible. The courts must guard against
a construction which might prove
mischievous and
RESULT IN A PRACTICAL DIVORCES
of man and wife, if such construction
can be avoided. In Cole v. Van
Ripen supra, this Court said that the
the Legislature never could have in
tended, by the enactment Of 1861, to
loosen the bonds of matrimony, or to
enable the wife, at pleasure, to effectu>
ate divorce mensa ct thoro or to
confer the power to restrict the hus.
band to the use of particular chair, or
to forbid him to take book from her |
library without her permission. We
shall not insist that such unwieflike
conduct can even be justified since the
law of 1869, The inquiry is therefore
pertinent-What Is left of the pupt;al
contract? What duties and obligations
still exist AS the result of the
marriage vow, and as part of the
contract, the wife is still bound
to love and cherish the
husband, and to obey him in all reason
able demands not inconsistent with the
exercise of her legal rights to treat
him with respect, and regard him, at
least, as her equal and he is alike
bouud to protect and maintain her,
unless she should neglect wholly her
martial duties, as imposed by the COM
mon law, or assume position to
prevent their performance, and thus
deprive him of her society, mar the
beauty of married life, and disregard
the household good. These duties
and obligations upon husband and wife