Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1879-03-06


gle thought two hearts that beat Is
one" found its rquiyaIent IN The pro-
visions Of the common Iaw that upon
marriage the legal existence ofthe wife
was merged ia that Of the husband
They were benceforth one person in the
eye Of the law and that peTson was the
husband. 1t is very tsue thar, even in
the remote days Of which we speak, in
many instances, the principle Of the law
was purely fiction. except in court
OF justice. the gray mare very often be-
ing the better horse. In other words,
the merger very often took plass, cav
ing the one person the wife. Never
theless, whenever any matter was
brought before The courts bearing upon
this relation, tbe wiie's separate exist
eace was never recognized.
This principle led 10 = great many
incidents, two OF three OF which We will
mention. AS necessary result Of the
principle, the husband became entitled
TO all the property belonging 10 the wife
al the time Of the marriage or acquired
By her afterwards. the personal proper
" absolutely aRd the real estate for life.
This would seem to be the inevitable
conclusion. because, il the wife ceased
to have legal existeDse apart from her
husband, her property bad to 60 tosome-
body, and the law naturally said it
should 20 10 that fortunate individual
with whom she had herself consented
to merge her legal entity. Another re-
suIt Of the principle was that the wO-
man. after she was married, could not
be sued for debts previously owing by
her, or any which she should afterwards
undertake TO incur. Not having any
legal capacity. she could neither be
sued nor make a contract. There was
q nece<rary result following from this.
As 10 debts due BY her before marriage,
the law said her husband should pay
them.
By marrying the woman, he had ac-
complished her legal death, and il was
no more than right that he should as
sumo the obligations of her who, by his
act and at his selection, had been rem
dered incapable Of being sued for them.
lie had also become possessed Of all her
property, and it was just that he should
take il cum oneTe.
Now, this was all very logical in
principle, and, We suppose, worked rea-
sonabIy we'll for many years. No doubt
many cases arose whese the husband
got very little property and had 10 pay
a great many debts, and vice versa,
when the property which had belonged
to The wife, and, became his upon the
marriage, was taken 10 pay his debts.-
OF this we have no doubt, That many
man. who was told that his wife's ex-
isfence had been merged IN his, shook
his head solemnly and said to himself
that what was law in the courts was to-
tally imperative in the domestic circle
and around the hearthstone.
So the law stood for long time until
the enlightened spirit of modern legis-
lation, within the last thirty or for forty
years. induced many changes in it. II
was especially felt to be cruel injustice,
that the property oil the vile, inherited
from her parents, or acquired by her
industry willie single, should, immedi-
aiely upon marriage, become the abso-
lutte property of the husband, with pow
er TO him to do with it as he pleased,
aud be liable to be taken TO pay all his
debts and obligations.
In our own State, the Constitutional
Convention OF 1851 provided that the
Legislature should pass laws TO protect
the property of the wife from the debts
OF the husband, aud now, under our
statutes. it is provided that she shall
hold what belongs to her at the time Of
marriage, and what she may afterwards
acquire, to her separate use and protec-
ted from the debts OF her husband. II
will thus be seen 49,; 49, under the exist
ing law, the husband no longer becomes
possessed Of the fund out Of which he
was formerly expected 10 pay The ante
nuptial debts of his wife, and, on ac-
count of his possession OF which, the
Law formerly placed that obligation upon
him. Itwould certainly seemth hat when
the reason CT law fails. the law itself
should fail, and vet the lawyers tell US
that, Notwithstanding the fact that the
husband no longer acquires the property
of the wife upon marriage, he is never
theless still responsible for the debts
contracted by her previously.
We are very much afraid, If this is
the present state of the law, that in the
effort to protect the females, our Iegis-
lators have forgotten TO discharge cor
relative duty towards their husbands.
Certainly, the husband should not be
compelled to pay his wife's ante-nup-
tial debts when he is not allowed to take
her property TO do il with. Besides, If
such be the law, il leaves open very
large door for fraud, not only upon the
wife's creditors, but upon the tieluded
individual who marries her. She may
contact debts 10 a very large amount,
and then marry to get rid of them. She
could luxurrate in her wealth and leave
her husband to meet her precious obi
cations. II really seems to Us that this
IS serious question. A great many
ladies' who have money are said to be
very much afraid that their suitors are
AFTER their money, but what would be
the pitlable condition OF that unfortu-
nate individual who finds, when II is too
late, that he has not only been made
the means of escape by the designing
female who calls herself his wife. from
her contracts and engagements. but that
she has cleverly cast The performance