The river press. [volume] (Fort Benton, Mont.) 1880-current, 1880-11-03

against MS vile, Wu6tHGA tlG iiSHs
before, or during the continuance of, the
marriage. She, on the other hand, became,
on marriage, entitled to a life interest il one
| third of all the estates of Inheritance Of
which her husband was seized at any time
during the marriage, TO be enjoyed il case
she survived him. She had a right to a rea-
sonable share of the personal estate which
he owned at the time of his death. She was
not allowed to make a will, nor any contract
binding herself or her property, except in re-
gard to her separate estate, which she might
bind in equity by a contract referring to 1t.
She could not release her right to dover ex-
cept by a contract made before marriage by
way Of settlement or j%ointure.
In the United States changes have occurred
in several States since that time, and now,
with few exceptions, there is no State which
does not secure the property of the wife
to her separate use, and protect it from her
husbands use. In almost all States and Ter
ritories the wife is forbidden to bind herself
by any personal contract, while she is allow
VA w. ilu AGA pO1C dIt OCpaidlC GSLGtC AA
equity as if unmarried. The old common
law liability Of the husband for his wife's
%antenuptial debts is generally retained, as
well as the right to curtesy in his wife's lands.
The wife's dover and personality rights re-
main unchanged, but she can release them
by a simple deed. The husband is still liable
for his wife's wrongs, whether committed
before or after marriage. The wife is allow
to make contracts binding on her as q trader.
The writer goes on to discuss what, in his
judgment, the direction Of progress should
be. When education began to spread, he
says, among the more advanced nations, the
idea Of female weakness Of body had given
birth to a similar idea in regard to her mind,
and she was prevented from the opportunities
Of the very training which was necessary to
demonstrate the falsity Of the theory. Re-
cent Developments have been, he thinks,
against this view, and he finds in these argu-
ments the basis Of the errors in the feudal
idea of marriage:
!. To allow two supreme wills in the household
would tend to promote family dissensions and legal
complexities, which are to be discouraged; but to al
low the wife a legal position would allow of two wills,
and would therefore promote family dissensions.
2. To take away the Wife's freedom Of will is to
take away her capacity, in the eyes of the law, for in
dependent action; but she is deprived Of this freedom
Of will to discourage family dissensions, and is there
fore incapable of independent action.
z No tala to uifo q carocffr for ;pdo,or1
dent action is to destroy her legal existence, which,
for the convenience Of society, must be represented
by her husband; but her capacity is taken away,
hence legal unity.
Now, if the major premise of the first ar
gument is denied, the whole structure falls,
and this is what the writer does. He denies
fatty that the existence of two independent
wills in the family would produce discord.
Freedom Of will is required among the mem
bers of a firm, he says, in order that a har-
monious decision may be reached and the
business be conducted proftably. No society
or partnership Of W or more wills can be
made harmonious, it is true, without certain
mutual concessions and the recognition Of
certain n1utaal restrictions, but he thinks
they should be mutual, and not confined to
one will exclusively. He denies that there is
any reason, in this argument, for placing the
wife in q different legal position from that
occupied by the husband, and the custom Of
marriage ahould involve these three things
l.. Amarried woman should haye the capacity to
hold, acquire, alien, devise, and bequeath her real and
personal estate, and to contract, sue and be sued as If
she were a single woman,
2. No persons married shall have any rights what
soever ia each others property, either during or after
coyertuTe, except such as should be created under the
provisions stated in the next paragraph, such as are
claimed by inheritance, and such as might be created
BY special agreement Or BY devise or bequest.
8. On the death Of either husband or wife ~intestate
survivor should be entitled to- share equally with
the heirs and representatives Of tbs deceased in all the
and personal property owned BY tie deceased at
death.
The objections to this, he says, will be that
it is too radical, and tends to destroy that
of interest which is so essential
to the harmony of the household, by making
the wife pull one way and the husband the
other; that the wife will be deprived Of ey-
cry means of support from the husband that
the ethical character will be lost to marriage;
and that it will increase the opportunities for
fraud, since each is not, as in other partner
ships, held liable as agent for the Others acts.
He defends bis position against all these at
tacks, and argues in return that the measure
would be desirable in that the rules OF cover
ture would be greatly simplided, and that the
moral and intellectual influences which the
.nrannsed change would bring 10 hear unan