The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-03-07

tor. "Whom God hath Joined together lel
not men,pul asunder" and yet our law Ylrlu,
ally does this, Of respects their property, and
all third parties when dealing with them IN
relation 10 H. Tho Wif's honor, social posi-
ton and happiness arc by the laws Of nature
and society, IN u great measure, committed
IA lhe control OF tho hpsbandi her property
Il but secondary N these considerations ana
yet tho law wlthholds the property from hin
and even from the intermediate "eommunlly'
fund, But this strange Inconsistency very
naturally ayails nothing IN fact, after all for
10 tho vast majority Of cases, tho wife, reason
ably regarding h0r property Nd only subordl'
nate W tho gfAyer inleresls already commit,
ted, pays no attention 10 u whatever md
knows nothing Of tho law Of her "righs''
The husband ordinarily uses tho property rs
he wishes, and when tho wlfss claims are
asserted, II IL no who 10 usually
tho real party In asserting them,
aud then only for tho purpose Of screening
himself from hls creditors, While tho law
does not In fact, protect the wife, II does pro-
teet tho husband IN tho preparation of
frauds,
Tho difficulty Of distinguishing between
the separate and community propertlol, and
their different liabilities at law, has proved n
source Of inlerminab confusion, Litigation
aud fraud. The cnses and authorizations
growing out Of this subject occupy moro
space In our Supreme Court reports than Any
Other three branches Of tho civil law CONF
blnCd, SO great hRl become the evil and
confusion that Justice Gould, delivering the
opinion Of the Court In tho case of Howard
VI. Marshall, As Texas Reports, page Az,
cries out for relief which hns not yet come,
"Wollconsldcred legislation on tho subject
of tho homestead aud community properly"
says he, "more fully defining the rights of
parties Is, In my opinion, and pm authorized
TO add, IN the opinion Of the Court, most ur-
gently called for" Tho Constitution Of 1916
contemplated aud provided for this cgisa-
ton by the following provisions; "And laws
shall be passed more clearly defining the
rights Of the wife In relation NJ well TO her
separate property rs that held In common
with her husband. Laws shall also be
passed providing for the registration of tho
wllcs separate property" These Identical
requirements Nro repeated In our subsequent
Constitutions including that OF 1915, Why
they have never been compiled
with aud the much needed legislation
enacted, Ia question TINT
can only be solved by reference to tho con.
sidcrations of policy already advcrtcd to, and
TO the swinging Of the pendulum of jurs.
prudence to m opposite oxtrope. The Leg,
stature of lSlS passed. m net giving TO the
wife the privilege Of registering n schedule Of
her separate property, but rs II provided no
penalty for neglect or refusal 10 register IT,,
the act Is but nullity--is disregarded, and.
like barren ilg tree, "cumbereih tho
ground" Sometimes, in this section, n man
who Is involved in debt records his cattle
brand in his wiio's namo, but no SCHEDULES"
can be found. The act Is too weak TO DO in
voked, even rs shelter for fraud.
Our carly Supreme courts, borne along
with tho receding pendulum, have virtually
held that the Legislature has no power to
correct these evils, or to do aught than to
"enlarge the privileges Of the wife, WAR
rem VS.. Dickinson, 8 Tex. Rep; Burlington
vs. Mayheld, Tex. Mckay VS.. Trcadwell,
8 Tex.G but II is not believed that in these
opinions our present Supreme court, with tho
added light Of thirty years on tho expert
ments, will fully concur. If an amendment
to the constitution should, however, be
thought necessary, then lei US have it, The
piupuibN VI thu w IcRlblbTtU,
and all not registered by her in her own
name should be held liable for community
debts. The personal property Of
the wife, going, as it usually
does, under tho actual msnage-
ment and control of the husband and It's
title not required to be Of record should,
with his personally, be community property.
This would bring us back to the ACT of 1910,
which mada only the lands and parapher-
MALTA of tho wife her separate property.
While the writer advocates total abolition
Of the distinction of separate properties"
as a matter of public policy, he thinks that
Justice, Mt least, demands that all real estate
not registered in the wifes NAME should be
held, ms against all creditors and
purchasers, to be the property of the com
nunity. Texas.h long enough held out
ler homestead exemptions and separate
property Systems, as bid for the immigra-
ion of knaves and rascals, and ms II standing
to fraud at home, aad has
hereby, in great measure, obtained the
reputation which she so abund- |
,ntly enjoys abroad
b. r. WYNN