The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-03-07
HUSBAND Ann WIFE
Our Separate and Community Prop
erty System-A Question for the
Consideration OF Future
Legislators.
TO tho EdItorof tho Herald.
nupgu UNuIulu Eab u "a

TO tho Edltorof tho Herald.
BREcKESnIpGK, Feb, -, 1850.
In view of the fact that conventions I,
nominate the men who arc 10 repre-
sent our people in the noxt Legislator,
will DO held within few months II Ia pecu
liarly appropriate that at this time our public
prints should discuss the character of gu,
laws, In order that the oxpcdiency of now
legislation may be cnnvassed and the wshe,
Of the people find proper expression. The
HERALD has, in the past given faithful and
fearless expression 10 It's views on main public
measures; and the writer hereof, believing
that our law regulating marital rights to be
defective and negotiable, presents the subject
for the consideration Of the HERALD and liz
many readers. The right of the wife TO hold
separate property, not liable for community
debts, is such convenient cover behind
which husbands may retreat in cases of
emergeney--such An ample protection for
doubtful business adventures that politicians
and prospective candidates will not bring any
issue on this subject before the people lest
they may imperil their chances for so simple
a matter us question of right and justice.
The subject can be agitated and its evils pre-
sented only through the fundamentally of
public journals of influence that have the
courage to speak their convictions.
The writer, while admitting that
under certain circumstances and
conditions, it may bo abstractly
right for husband and wife TO hold separate
property, yet believes that both Justice and
expodency require that this right should be
carefully limited and closely restricted; that
with our present, liberal homestead exemp-
ton, this separating of property is unueces-
sary and expedient that the exemption of
the wife's property from liability for com.
munity or family expenses, is inherently un-
just, and that this division ofthe interests Of
tho matrimonial partners is productive of no
real good, but only of confusion and fraud
The common law in giving the wife's prop
erty to the husband and subjecting it to even
his ante-nuptial debts, was harsh and ex-
treme; that one extreme produces and fol.
lows another is law Of nature, and that our
modern Legislature has carried this subject
to the opposite extreme, admits of reasonable
demonstration. Not only is the property of
husband and wife separated in law, but "
third kind, known rs community property,
it placed between them; all three kinds usu-
ally mingled together in point of fact, vet
all having different kinds of liability, while
the wife's property is, in point Of law, put
beyond even her own control and cannot be
held liable for her own personal expenses, or
even for necessaries for herself and children
unless all these facts concur that the hus-
band is insolvent; that there is no communi-
ty property not exempted; that the debt was
contracted for neccsssries, and by the wife
herself, or by her express authority.
When our Constitution of 1916 was formed
the tide Of public sentiment was then bearing
with its strongest pressure in favor of extend
ing and protecting the rights of the wife.
The provisions of that Constitution on the
subject--which are the same as those in our
present one-were, to great extent. expert
mental, and intended TO DO guarded By
subsequent legislation that has never been
or put in force. These provisions while
conforming in the main with the Spanish or
civil law, that had previously prevailed in
Texas, were yet an innovation on that law
which, from time immemorial, had governed
the English and American people, and were
at best but experiments with us. Tie expe-
dience of the new system was also based
upon other provisions of that Constitution.
which have since then been materially
altered. Then the property exempted as =
homestead could not exceed, at the time of
its designation, two thousand dollars in
value; now 1t is entered to five thousand
dollars; then the two hundred acres exempted
for the rural homestead we're not half, or
third as valuable as now, and the present
liberal exemption can not now be mortcaged
or in any way encountered by the husband.
even with the wife's consent. The PRINCIPAL
of protection for the wife Is amply attained
in the provisions enacted specially for her
benefit and that of her children, and secure
10 them home and means of support thai
cannot be squandered by the husband I'll
these provisions are araple for the purpose
then the right of the wife to hold separate
property ceases, while the husband should
not be heard to claim any such right for
himself.
1t Is general law of partnerships that each
partner owns an equal interest in every part
ofts assets. and also that all of its assets are
primarily liable for all its expenses. The
matrimonial partnership Is one in which ali
the interests and rights Of the parties are
more completely blended and more closely
interviewer than In any other, and In the re..
son Of this case these general principles
should apply more fully and rigidly to this
pannership than " that Of any other chsrsc.