The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-04-11
The Woman's Rights Bill.

Old maids and old bachelors always know
how to manage other peoples children. So
,he old fellows of the Wing know how TO TX
ED matrimonial affairs for the "ardent
Youths" of the State. The Wing makes Mr..
SmrH's bill out to be totally uncalled-for.
That paper tells US, in effect, that it is for
the protection of wives whose husbands
q squander their money! 49,.
Suppose we consult facts. The census is
4 bard thing upon visionary schemes. In
1s7othere were in Virginia 23l ,574 families
say $4,000 married men. From these de-
duct the negroes, who own no property, and
shere would be about 900 left. Of these,
two-thirds married women who either bad
no estates of their own or else not more pro-
pc-ty than their husbands. Deduct these,
and we Lave left about $4,000. OF this last
number not more than one in dozen, say
one in a eleven, married women for the sake
Of their money. Deduct again, and we have
1000 as the number Of husbands who
have thus married for money. OF these
1000 not more than one in ten does actually
.quander bis wife's money. Whence it fol-
lows that to protect 400 wives 129, 600 couples
are to be made subject to a law that would
in fact make two families out Of every one
in the State-a fathers family and mothers
family. Now, there are more lunatlcs IN
Eirrinia than wives such as this bill is In
tended TO protect. and it would be as wise
in the Legislature to require all the men ana
women in the State to reside in lunatic
asylums Gf that were possiole) as 1t Wouiu
be thus to throw brand OF discord into
129,G0O families in order that 400 wives
might be protected from the results oil theu
own acts. ...sets.@
But, as the Wing wishes to provide
regular business co-partncrship as d supsti
tute for the wise marriage laws, which hav'
ALWAYS operated SO dwell in Virginia and re
suited in families famed for all good grace
and men noted for all that is grandest in blu
man nature, let US reduce the affair to
purely business one The man, then, VIII
makes $1,000 n year ought to marry 1T
woman whose estate would not produce tina
much annually, unless indeed she is to 60 Il
work and make money, too. Thus the mai
who clears that sum annually would have I
wed q woman worth over $4,000 in pro
perty. Does the Wing mean that?
The bill in question ought to be amende
so rs to provide that hereafter the vii
should not take the husbands name unles
he had more money than she. and that h
should take her name when she brought tt
most capital into the firm. business is bu
siness, you see.) Then the world and tt
happy children of each couple-Do, firm-
blessed with offspring would know whel
she money came FROM"
I Mr.. SM1Tu's bill is intended to secure to
woman all Ter property acquired either "b
fore or after marriage" She may sue an
be sued as q feme sole. But take her boar
bills: Is her husband liable for them !? Ca
he be sued and made to pay them2 IN
questiOnabiy. They are his debts as IL
law now stands-and this bill does not Dr.
pose to change 1t in that respect. There
justice for you. Or, say the couple Ina,
children. The poor husband is liable for .
their bills for board, clothes, and educatlo
and the rich wife for none of these bills.
that just? The wife is also empowered to di
inherit her own children.
Again: The bill empowers wife to 81
her OWL husband, or to spplyto a court q
justice to authorize conveyance of propert
which be refuses to convey. Isn't that Il bill
to protect society?
Again: Under Mr.. SMIrn's bill the mar
Rage Of woman having no property puts
an end to her debts. The husband can't be
made to pay them, and she can't be made to
pay them.
Wecould drive a six.horse wagon through
The bill. Let it die the death Of the wicked.
UTr the country saya5D ,k;. T.