The new Northwest. [volume] (Portland, Or.) 1871-1887, 1876-05-05
woMAN's RIGHTs---No. Q.
BY BILLY BLISTER.

let US inquire where all this thing of
"woman's rights" will lead us. By the
common law land allow me to say we
have adopted the common law in this
country, and of course it must prevail
unless changed by statute) whatever
a woman earned belonged to her hus-
band. Was not that right? Is 1t not
right now? OF course it is. What
right has a woman to her earnings? ?
Do not her services belong to her hus-
band Does not even her wearing ap-
parel belong to her husband under the
circumstances ? By a fiction of that
law he is supposed to allow her to use
and wear her paraphernalia, including
jewelry, ETC., while she lives, aud he
permits; but be has the right to, sell it
if he chooses; he can convey the title to
it and she cannot; then in law it is his,
not hers. That is as it should be, be-
cause, as L have said before, the common
law is right. By that law, ,swhen a
woman entered into a marriage con-
tract, she agreed to give to her husband
absolutely all of her personal property,
and if child was born to them alive,
that fact gave her husband the right to
the use of all her real estate, rents, is
sues, and profits during his life; our
statute commonly known as "Deady's
Code" changes that for the better, and
gives the husband the wife's real estate
for life, child or no child. Now,
is not that right? Is not the wis
dom of the common law clearly
made manifest? But you would argue
that if the husband has a right TO the
wife's real estate for life by courtesy,
why should not the wife have a right to
the husbands real estate by courtesy
also? Simply, I say, because the right
of dover (which is one-third the hus-
bands estate) for life is enough for her;
she's a woman; he's man-that's the
difference. Don't the husband give her
new name-his name-at marriage?
Is not that something? Don't he give
her children his name? Don't he prom
ise to protect and support her? Uts
true some bad husbands don't do it, but
that is not the fault of the law; the law
intends that he should). True, there's
no law to compel him to do it, unless
some silly grocer is willing to risk q
lawsuit by trusting her for absolute
necessities, mind you, nothing else, on
his account, and not many of them like
to do it; and wouldn't, if were they.
These measures are necessary to keep
women in subjection, so that the hus-
band can have the control, the govern
ment.- See what it would lead to if a
wife had the right directly to compel
her husband to support her. Why,
there would be no living with women
pleased, and if a woman then happened
from any cause to marry man she did
not like, he would no longer have the
power to compel her to subsection by
shutting off her supplies of food and
clothing. That would not do. Can you
not see that this would tear to ruins in
a moment the work and wisdom of ages ?
that it would overthrow all the reasons
upon which the trainers of the common
law based their Judgment? that it
would prove those old Patriarchs to
have been wrong, and even impeach the
veracity of st. Paul? Why, good wom-
en-, it would disturb our whole order Of
things, and after that would not be
surprised to hear judge charge jury
that mans chastity must be consid-
cred by them in weighing his testi-
mony.
Now, taking up the subject where we
drove the peg in in the first communi-
cation, are we not forced into the con-
clusion by reason from analogy, that as
the giving the negro the right to "free.
dom" entailed upon him all the other
rights, even to being a Congressman,
would not the giving of "freedom" tc
woman give her similar rights and
privileges ? and if it did, then what
would be the consequences Women
would be asking to be made into law
, uOCIOloi anu anu SOllc
would be asking for Office. Then, as l
said before, we would be compelled to
change the whole course of educating
our girls; it would not do to give them
a superficial smattering of the arts aud
sciences, and teach them a very little
French and music to be fashionable on.
We would be compelled to allow them
to delve deeply into all those subjects
which would cause them to think for
themselves, for they would then be in
dividuals. What more education does
girl need now, than to know that the
great and only object of her life is to
marry? Why, many mothers, and faith
ers, too, must see that the girls would
inevitably have some higher aim in life
than to marry and bear children, as it
now is. They would be self-supporting;
they would not care half so much for
dress as now; it would satisfy them in
that line if they were dressed in a neat,
clean, and tidy manner. They would
throw off nine-tenths of their gew-gaws.
quit using paints, varnish, cosmetics,
perfumes, false curls, and all these beau
tiful things that make a woman look