Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1876-11-17
Rights OF widows.
a.. r.o Droae and Tfuas

tn the Editor OF the Free Press and Iimes
am reluctant to ask of you any more
snace in your paper for the discussion OF
the rights of widows, although the subject
seems to me very important. But there u
a remark in your comment upon my last
article that has tendency to produce
wrong impression upon the minds OF your
readers, in relation to my real views. You
saw 1--WE do doubt whether the legal busi-
ness partnership between husband and wife,
hich some would substitute for, perhaps
we should say connect with, marriage would
be for the advantage. in the long run, and
in the majority of cases, OF the wives or
widows"
Now your remarks being made in con-
nec.ion with or in reference to my article
upon the subject Of the settlement of estates,
a careless reader might infer that l had ad-
yocated the business partnership you
speak of.
Of course, do no such thing. | hold to
the " sacredness OF the union, but want
the UNION" to enure to the benefit oi
one as well as the other The law makes
them one, but when one, and that not the
- better half" Of the unit Is separated
from the others, it makes a great difference
in the condition Of the survivors. The
widower has unquestioned, undisturbed
nossession of the trhOle of the joint estate
The widow gets one third, and the rest goes
n the children. or, if there are no children.
she fares a little better, having one-hall,
and the other half goes to the husband S re-
latives. do not take in the homestead and
other minor provisions of the law. but speak
If the general fact If it is proper to treat
the lrid0ic in this way. why not treat the
,ri4oirer in the same way? Ii 1t IS best that
| the vidoyer should have the whole, why
| i. il not bzst that the widow should have
/ the whole? If one-hslf should be taken
/ and should be given 10 the husbands rela-
tiyes. " hen the husband dies chitdleSS, why
! should not one-helf be taken II the
wifi, dies childleSs. and given to the
wiie's relatives? Why not take tins nay
and divide it between both sides Of the house
[ don't see why the oneness should all be on
oss side. Change the law, and the wife
,niobt marry again. and all the property
would 90 out Of the family. Indeed and
MIGHT not the husband DO the same thing,
and the property laid up and secured quite
as much by the wife's toll and prudence, go
out of his family? Suppose the separation
takes place after the wife Is hlty years Oh,
/ which of the two would most likely become
the parent Of children by another marriage
/ The present law, giving the husband no IN
/ tarest in the Wits property, Is an outrage
/ unrn common sense, and since such case
rarely occurs, it Is probably intended to
blind the eyos Of women. and lead them to
| think they have an advantage over men.
When there Is one such case there are
multitude Of others. The general TACT Is mat
the estate i accumulated by the JOINT Ianor
ard skill of both husband and wife You
see there IS no need Ct keeping the account
YOU speak Of, because the change | propose
! 10 4
rights in the settlement Of estates. 1t as
sumes that husband and wife are one while
they live and when one Of them dies. the
unity Is kept up. by continuing the posses
sion f the Joint estate in the hands OF the
surviving half, doing by the widow what
Is now done by the WIdOwer re. doing nom
ma. lust as the law does when the vile dies
IL does nothing-dOn t know that the VII
IS dead. 50 let it be when the husband dies.
Let the law ignore the event. and let the
widow alone, d il does the Wld0wer. W hat
would become OF the husband debts? Lsi
the widow pay them Just as 1t lets the nus
band pay them. All my observation goe'
to show that the average widow Is more
likely to remain widow than the average
widOwer and this tendency would be IN
creased, If she was not LETT dependent 10y
taking away the the most OF the pro
I
all my observation goes to convince me
that the average widow Is quite a
likely 10 take care of property wisely a
the average wIdJwers, and quite as Ike ) tc
help her children, if she has any. Let,
then. the periodical accOuntines 60
Treat husband and wife as one. and let II be
understood that whatever either has, Il
either has anything shall 90 in a. common
stock, to share the fortunes of 10th. II
were going to ask any ddr0Htggc, It would
be in behalf Of the purest and noblest hall
Of the one thing husband and rife. | ak
for ne advantage OF either over the other
but | demand SIMPLE eIuaiay. treat them
both alike eTactig, that Is all. As to suffrage
when women demand it, allow il. do not
wish 10 admit any other question row. but
simply woman 5 rights il the settlement Of
estates. Law once gave sOns twice a much
as it gave the daughters. The law got
over that absurdity-let it get over stll
greater one, and treat widows as It treats
Widowers, Just as it gives girls the SAINT
rights in the property Of deceased parents
that II gives boys. o. C. ".