The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1878-01-12

allowed yearly advertisers without additional charge
these eminent .iurists a prompt reply at
considerable length. The following brief
extracts, however, give the glst Of their
opinions. Chancellor Kent said:
81 have been educated under the Eng
lish common law code relative to the re.
latou of husband and wife, and am not
insensible to the many harsh features which
are alluded to in the speech you made in
introducing the bill, and for the perusal of
which | feel greatly indebted to you.
Several of the ohiectlous to the common
law doctrine are so strong that | should
wish to see parts of that system corrected;
but | cannot say that am prepared for SD
thorough an Innovation you propose
Judge Story was more decidedly in favor
of the civil law principle. He wrote:
"Your speech has treated the whole
subject in very striking and mastery
manner, and cannot fail, think. to satisfy
the minds of rejecting men that the present
state of the common law with regard to the
rights of property between husband and
wife is inequitable, unjust. and i'll adapted
to the purposes of refined and civilized
society. | perceive that your scheme is
IbuHutu On, vi III CDluCHutuCc Will,
the civil law system. There are, in that
system, a great many admirable provisions,
and | am not sure, whole, whether it
does not work better than that Of the COM
mon law on this subject. AS, however, |
| have never lived in a civil law country, l
do not feel competent to Judge of its actual
| operation. | have long been dissatisfied
with the state of the common law respect
ing the rights of property between hus-
band and wife, | think it requires great
| alteration aud amendments for the protec-
tion of the properly of married women
coming to them after as well as before
marriage. But whether it would be best
-r-----'-~age the entire system for that of tho
~ vim --c~-r-nont upon which l am not
civil law Is d i-sl,---iuIon"
prepared to give an Ops,
After stating his inabifftg1-c--o>-.soord
whether the change proposed would aos~
AS to be useful he thought it should
with the feelings and instructions of the
people of Indiana, Judge Story adds:
"Many of the provisions of your bill
strike me in their general bear ing to be-
excellent and worthy of the thorough and
deliberate examination of every wise legis-
lature.'
Profiting by these structures and by the
knowledge l gradually gained of the feel
ings and preiudices of my fellow members,
thereby convinced, also, that my bill was too
radical for that time and place, did not
press it to final vote. At the next session
we revised the laws, and, being appointed
one Of the revision committee, l adopted
more prudent system of tactics. 1t so
happened that the law of descents was
referred for revision to a sub committee
consisting of Mr.. Marshall of jefferson
county, one of the ablest lawyers in the
House, and myself. Having won over my
colleague, l reported, with concurrence, a
bill giving to the widow of an intestate
dying without children one-tbird of his
real estate i'll fee absolute and two thirds
of his personal property; the old law en-
titled her, in most cases, to but one third
of his personal property, and the use, dur
ing her life, of one-third of his real estate.
Yet even this proposal to do scant and
partial justice to a childless widow drew
down upon me a storm of Remuneration | .
was assaied by one of the most prominent
lawyers and old speakers of the House as a
reckless ,innovator, to whom nothing was
sacred, not even laws and principles. dat
ing back to the time of Edward the Con-
fessor, and stigmatized my bill as a covert
attempt to annihIlate social rights and ties,
and "subvert the whole order OF society,""
ignored the personal attack and con-
tented myself with the following appeal to
the sympathies and sense of justice of the
farmers, of whom our Legislature was
largely composed:
"Who takes lot and part in the heavy
laboIs Incident to the occupation Of new
country? Is it the mau alone? Is there
no task but that he performs mo home
duties. no domestic labor, sometimes
weighing down his weaker partner even to
the grave? | appeal to any successful
settler. who, having raised his cabin first in
the wild woods, has opened tiourishiug
farm and seen plenty flow in upon him,
whether he, alone and unaided, built up his
fortune and made comfortable his home?-
whether there was not one who saved while
he accumulated: whether, when his arm was
busy without her head was idle within; and
whether bis heart does not revolt at the idea
that she, whose prude Mt economyh has SO faitl-
fully seconded his exertionS while he lived,
should, if diseased or accident deprive her
of his sustaining arm. have wreuched from
her, by an niquitous law, the property her
watchtul care may have mainly contributed
to increase and keep together If we
had proposed to alter the law, so that the
whole property went to the widow, who shall
say that such change would have been
inexpedient or unjust? We give, by this
bill, less than half. because we scrupled to
make, even so righteously for the better,
sudden change. If blame attach to us,
it is in being too fearful of innovation, and
in not proposing, as we ought, to give her
the whole"
At the commencement of the debate the
House had seemed to hesitate at the pro-
posed change, but when Mr. Marshall had
followed up my remarks by an effective
speech on the same side, there was COM
plete Revision of feeling and the bill passed
almost by reclamation, and became, for
time, the law of the State.
The new law was everywhere received
with appreciation, and remained in force
until a commission appointed to codfy the
id"S GEDppSu IL OUT Oh Inc revised COQe OF
1913. 1t is difficult to bel ieve that such an
omission was due to carelessness If it
was made of set purpose, what comment
does it furnish on the recklessness of pro-
fessional preiudices' The Legislature,
brought face to face with the notorious
fact that, throughout the toilSome farming
life, the wife bears her full share of the
burden and heat of the day, and taken a
first step in Fighting the grievous wrong
done to her. The people approve; but
the commissions, in contempt alike of civ
ilzation and of Christian precept. go out
of their way to defeat the popular will. and
to revive legal principles which were dis
grace even to the dark feudal period whence
they originally sprang. For ten years
- i