The river press. [volume] (Fort Benton, Mont.) 1880-current, 1880-11-03
TIE MARRIAGE RELATION.
The Sacred Institution in its Legal Rela-
tions.-Laws and Customs OF Various
Nations in Various Ages.
fChicago Times.

(Chicago Times.]
The old law was that the husband and wife
were one, and the husband was hat one; out
now. some writer has Wittlly Observed, Inc
husband and wife are two, and the wife IS
both Of them. The question OF the rights OF
married woman has been discussed In his
torical and philosophical manner by 9 writer
id the last number of Appletoa's Journal, and
some of bis facts and arguments are worthy
Of thought.
TIE laws upon the relations Of the husband
end wife which prevail in the United States
today were obtained from the English COM
mon law, but the history Of those relations is
interesting. Long before the Norman con-
quest the Anglo-Saxons had marital customs
differing from the ones which now prevail
among us.
The woman was regarded with great res
pect, and not IS an inferior creation. The
wife was allowed great personal liberty, and
accompanied and assisted her husband in
matters of daily life. The marriage tie was
wholly ethical in its nature, and had lost en-
tirely all traces of the contract Of sale. The
marriage gifts which bound the marriage
consisted Of personal estate, and were purely
symbolical in character, and not given as
means Of support. The marriage did not
merge the existence of the wife into that of
the husband, but made her q partner with
him. The wife appears, indeed, to have
been given up wholly to the husband, and
was not allowed q second marriage, and
there is even found a rite similar to the Hin
du suttee in the custom somewhat prevalent
that she should, on the death Of her husband,
hang herself. But it was a legal unity where
both were acting parties, and the union was
one Of mutual consent, and did not arise
from g legal Or forcible suppression of the
wife. There is not to be found a trace, in
the Saxon law, Of the early Roman custom
that the husband acquired clear title to his
wife and to al her property owned at the
time of marriage or afterward acquired. AS
guardian, the husband was co-possessor with
his wife Of all her property, including the
marriage gift neither could ALLEVIATE proper
tY without the others consent, and generally
the wife was the acting and the husband the
consenting party. The husband had, in
general, the free disposal Of bis property,
as far as concerned his wife, but where q
specific marriage gift had not been granted
the wife she had a right in law to al undi-
vided portion of her husbands property.
The Wife's property was not ansWerable for
the debts Of the husband, nor his property
for her debts. Gifts and conveyances between
the two were ommon 1t the husband sur
viVed, the Wife's property was inheritedby her
heirs. The wife had full ownership Of her
marriage gift, unless limited to her life by
its terms, and it was conditioned on her sur
vivorship. The husband had no rights as
survivor, except as guardian of the children.
These were, according to the writer refer
red to, and his statements are supported by
authority, the laws and customs of the An
glo-Saxons. But with the Norman conquest
sVas introduced into England, and force, not
became the foundation of all law,
the marriage law included. Only those
VINO could fight were important in the state.
forced down from her position Of equality
into one Of utter insignifcance, except as she
might be the mother Of q man-child. This
idea has come even to our time, and a cele-
Van,ar-r;n},tc rofarnoar aD,aorad hn-
fore Congress, some years since, with the
words. "Because we need these reforms it is
[, the mother, OF men, appear before
you to demand them" The feudal system
enforced chastity in the wife, and from the
three ideas-the homogeneous marriage, the
insigniicance of woman, and the necessary
province given men under the feudal system
our author thinks, the legal pTinci-
pie that the husband and wife are one, and
the husband is that one and finally the prin-
ciple which had its origin in a barbarous OPP
preston Of the wife came to be boldly up
held as a protection to her honor. The OPP
preston began first ia property rights. The
husband, as guardian, took all the rents and
profits Of bis Wife's real estate, but only in
her right. Then it came to be proclaimed
that the man and the woman were one. and
the rule was established that the personal es-
tate Of the wife passed absolutely to the hus-
band as a gift, at marriage. She never made
a will, never made contracts, and never own
I'd any personal estate.
After while men beran TO realize the un-
fairness Of q law based upon a romance but