Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1877-01-10
Rights of Married Women.

Governor Hubbard, of Connecticut, in his
late message to the General Assembly of
that state, makes the following sensible re-
marks and recommendations "There has
been for the last few years in this state
much slip-shod and fragmentary legisla-
ton in respect to the property rights of
married women. The old common law as
sumed the subjugation of the wife, and
stripped her of the better part of her rights
of person and nearly all her rights of prop
erty. II is a matter of establishment that
Christian nations should have been willing
for eighteen centuries to hold mothers of
their race in a condition of legal servitude.
1t has been the scandal of jurisprudence.
Some progress has been made in reforming
the law in this state, but it has been done,
as | have already said, by patchwork
and shreds, sometimes i'll considered, and
often so homogeneous as to provoke vex-
atious litigation and defy the wisdom of the
courts. The property relations of husband
and wife do not to-day rest OIL any just or
harmonious system. Not only has the hus.
band absolute disposal of all his own property
freed from all dover rights, but he is practi-
cally the owner during coverture of all his
wife's estate not specially limited to her
separate use; and after her death has, in
every case, life use in all her personal, and
in most cases in all her real property, by a
title which the wife, no matter which may
have been his i'll deserts, is powerless to i'm
pair or defeat; whereas, on the other hand,
the wife has during the husbands life no
pore power of her own right to sell, convey,
or manage her own estate than if she were
lunatic or slave, and in case of his death has
life use in only one-third part of the real
estate of which he dies possessed, and no in
defeasible title whatever in any of his per.
sonal estate. As consequence, husband
may strip the wife, by mere voluntary dis
position to strangers, of all claim on his es-
tate after his death, and thus add beggary
to widowhood. am sure this cannot seem
right to any fair-minded man. Neither is
it strange that some of our countrywomen,
stung by the injustice of the law towards
their sex, should be demanding, as a mode
of redress, part in the making of the laws
which govern them. am confident there
is manhood enough i'll our own sex to right
this obvious wrong to which have alluded
| therefore recommend that the law on this
subject be so recast that, in all marriages
hereafter contracted, the wife shall hold her
property and all her earnings for personal
services not rendered to her husband OF
minor children, of sole and separate es
tate, with absolute power of disposition in
her own name, and that the surviving wife
shall have, by law, the same measure of es
tate in the property of the deceased husband
as the surviving husband shall be allowed tc
have in the property of his deceased wife
This will reduce their property relations tc
a principle of equality, and in my Judge
ment, is demanded by the most obvious die
tates of justice and equity. Those who are
not satisfied with this can make different
law for themselves by ante-nuptial settle
ments. / am not unmindful that the hus
band alone is liable in the first instance foi
the support of the family; but this is much
more than neutralized by the fact that, il
most cases, the wife's whole life is spent il
the toilsome and unpaid services of tn,
household, and that the whole drift of he
estate, in consequence of her more unselfisl
and generous nature, is towards the hus
bands pockets, in spite of all the guards o
the law and every consideration of pru
dence"
Upon the above recommendation the Hart
ford Cowam comments as follows 9Th
recommendation in regard to recasting tn
law in respect to the property rights of mar
ried women is so just and vigorously state'
that we have the highest hopes of legislativ
action upon it. The present condition o
the law is disgrace to our manhood and t,
every idea of fair play. 1t is simply mon
strous that the husband can so completed,
gobble up the separate property of his wife
and we might well go further and say that i
is equally just that the wife should not hav
an equal right and share in the property &C
cumulated during marriage. The husban,
is popularity supposed to "make" it, bu
we take no account of the thrift and econom,
of his wife, nor of the value of the service
in the house and to the family. In perhap
The majority of cases, certainly in agricul
tural regions, the wealth is due quite a
much TO the woman as to the man; and il
nearly all cases the duties which she dis
charges are just as important, just as neces
sary to the comfort of life and the well-be
ing of society as those he is busy with. w
should like to see Connecticut lead off in
radical removal of this unmanly injustice"