Arizona citizen. [volume] (Tucson, Pima County, A.T. [i.e. Ariz.]) 1870-1880, 1876-03-18
TIE CITIZEN.
SATURDAY, AARCH Is, 1876
CoNTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE.
SIPREME COURT SF ARIZONA

lawing language: We think the lie
;sIa1ure haS not the constitutional pO'
.er 10 say. that the fruits of the pro
e-7v of The wife shah be taken fro
her and given TO the husband or Ii
creditors. If the constitutional prov
sion be not protection To the Wi
against the exercise of this authorit'
the anomaly would seem to exist Of I'll
e RICH, ofproperty in one, Invested of Il
brneticial use,-the barren right
hold in the wife, and beneficial rigl
10 eniov in the husband One ObieC
of the provision was To protect the VII
against the imprOvidence of the hu:
hand. but This object would wholly fai
in many instances, if the estate of Ii
wife were reduced TO amere reversiOni
rv interest. to be of no avail TO her eN
.cept in a contingency of her survlvin:
her husband" The court further says
The common law recognizes no sucl
, solecism, as right in the wife TO tn
: estate and Il right in some one else Il
> use il as he pleased, and to enjoy al
: the advantages Of its use. 1t Is no
) perceived that property can be in ont
i'm full and separate ownership, with the
right in another to control II and enjoy
: all its benefits The sole value ofprOper
ty is in its use. To disassociate the right
, of property from the use in this class
IOf cases. would be 10 preserve the name,
the mere shadow and destroy the
thing itself-thc substance. It would
be To make the wife the trustee for the
husband, holding the legal title while
he held the fruits of that title. This
could no more be done, in consistency
with our ideas of property, during the
lifetime Of the wife, than for all time"
The act Of 1865, as has been seen,
which preScribes what property shall
be the separate property of the wife,
contains also the antagunistic provision
that the husband shall have the man.
agement thereof, and of the rents and
profits of the same The Act of 1871
repeals these antagonistic provisions,
/ bv giving To the wife the sole and eXclu-
Sive control of her separate property,
which carries with it the right To use
and invest the fruits thereof. Under
the law of 1865, whatever of fortune
belonged 10 the wife at her marriage
or came To her in any manner after
wards, either as the fruits of her sepa-
rate property or otherwise, was taken
wholly from her use and control and
given 10 the sole management of the hus-
band. She might have been possessed
before her marriage q ample means to
supply her wants and crafty her tastes,
free from control of any one, but on
the day of her marriage and by the
act of marriage. she is Invested of the
right to use one dollars worth of this
property as her own 1t makes no diff.
ference what the kind and character
of the property may be; if she had a
carriage II is no longer her own; she
may not even use it except by leave of
her husband; if she have money. the
.lasband may demand and take possess
ion of it, doing it out To her, if at all,
in such pittanceS us to make her kcenlv
sensible of her condition of serfdOm.
This was the law of 1865 and these the
conditions to which every woman in
Arizona had 10 submit in contracting
marriage under it.
We are advised by recent decisions
of the United States courts. of the eff
feet oi the decree Of cOnfscation of the
of those recently in rebellion
against the Government and under
stand The effect of such decree of con.
fiscatlon To be, wholly to deprive the
of all right to use and control. /
nr IN any manner interfere wilh the
property confiscatcd in his lifetime
though at his death it may pass to his
heirs. Under the Act of 1865. as it
stood before the enactment of 1871, the
wife possessed of a fortune an the day
d her marriage, by entering into this
relation lost is wholly and completely
all right to the use and enjoyment of her
separate property, Us if the same had
been confiseated for rebellion against
he Government The decree of con
lScalon in the one case, and the brides
marriage certificate in the other, would
operate alike, and take from rebel and
natrOn with admirable completeness
lnd lmparuality, all right to use, appro. ,
Drlatc and enjoy the least even Of the
treasures owned and held by them, when
,lther entered INTO holy matrimony. on
he one hand, or committed an act of {
ebelllOn, on the other.
1t seems to US the penalty. so to
peak, imposed by the law of 1865 up- I
IA women for entering into the mar e
lage relation, was unnecessarily Sc S
ere. 1t was to get rid of these OBJ b
oxlous provisions that the Act CT e
81 was passed. The law as it +
TODD before that Act was passed. in
lead OF fostering and encouraging b
iarrlage, was framed as If for the f,
cry purpose Of preventing women a
assessed otproperty from entering up a
n tins relation. The more enlioht- V
ned Legislation of 1871 SAYS to every n
oman contracting marriage in this Fl
errltory, you shall have the sole \
nd exclusive use and control of your Il
'psrate property, and may bestow. "
1nvey and transfer the same. when el
nd how you will, as fully and per- b
city as If unmarried" D
We think the Act of 1871 adds 10 o.
lie methods by which the wife may ell
otain separate property. That in Il
cad of being confined to several te
iethods of gifts, requests, devises and a,
scents, she may add to her separate te
roperty by purchase, that she NAV Il
Sc the rents and profits of her sepa- T
tie property, by investing them in n
lie purchase of other property, lands b
personal property, and that such C,
-operty, when so purchased, is not k
'quired IN the sense III which that cl
ord is used in the first section of the Il
CT of 1865. We conclude then that OF
ie wife OF the age of 81 years. in ad- cC
ton to the property owned by her IL
her marriage, and in addition to that 81
iterwards acquired by gift, bequest. tc
sVlSe OF descent, may acquire prop Il
'ty, real or personal, by purchase If pl