Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-09-16


At the July meeting the then president
Of the association, the Hon. William F.
Cooper, of Nashville, made an address.
The speaker begins by characterizing the
present time as the age OF the association.
He gives in the beginning of his address a
concise review of the history of law.
THE CHANGES IN THE LAW.
The speaker gives the following resume Of
the changes in the statute laws, and the
new acts passed by the Legislature:
"There are about twenty-five repeating acts,
seventeen of which repeal go many charters
of municipal corporations. The object Of
such legislation will be noted presently.
Nineteen acts merely change county lines,
and one act undertakes to change the boun-
dairy line of municipal corporation. Nine
teen other acts purport TO modify, in one or
two particulars, the charters of municipal
corporations. 10 other words, so many mu-
nicipal corporations are legislated for by
special, not general laws. Five other acis,
in the form of general laws, modify
the Taxing District acts, these districts being,
in effect, municipal corporations Seven
acts only change the time of holding 80
many courts. Fourteen acts were passed for
the benefit of individuals, three for certain
academies, and one for the University of
Tennessee. Two acts change the names of
private corporations, two relate TO the debt
OF Memphis, three or four make appropria-
lions for the expenses of the government,
TWO relate to the funding of the State debt,
one changes the mode of printing the re-
ports of the Supreme Court, one author-
ICES the comptroller TO bid in land cold
nnder judgment or decree in favor of the
State, one is a census act, and one appoints
\ commission in regard to the improvement
of the Cumberland river. Another act-and
a somewhat curious one, manlfestIy aimed at
some particular railroad company-purports
to enforce the forfeiture of railroad charters
in certain contingencies, and to dispose Of
the corporate properly. There are four acts
authorizing the issuance oil county bonds /;
three of them to fund past-due Indebtedness,
and one act empowering aspeci6ed county 10
issue bonds to build a poorhouse aud
luuatic asylum. There is also 4 general act
authorizing municipal corporations 10 fund
their Indebtedness by the issuance Of bonds;
a similar act for such corporations having Il
population of 10000 inhabitants; and still
another, in favor OF the latter class of cor
porstions, to issue bonds to build water
works. A general act gives counties and in
corporated towns power 10 subscribe for stock
10 railroads Another act authorizesra railroads
10 issue bonds, and 10 lease and build rail-
roads in other States"
ABOUT MATRIMONIAL ASSOCIATIONS.
Judge Cooper says: sit is doubtful
whether the Legislature has yet gone far
enough to meet the corporate wants of the
community, and cover The new brood of cor
porstions (so-called) spripging up all over
the State. Among others, nuplial aud natal
insurance, or assurance-the latter being, /
presume, the more proper words on a
boom. Every free man should put his house
IN order TO be prepared for contingencies
What, between the late speculation in fu-
tures, and the new speculation, in futures
too, we are all, it seems, destined to be
squeezed; and if our ueighty attorney-gen-
eral sits down on the corporation, there will
be some squeezing on the other side"
Mr.. Andrew Allison, of Nashville, read a
report on Legal Education" and "Admis-
sion 10 the Bar"
RIGHTS OF MARRIED WOMEN.
Mr.. N. Smithsop, of Pulaski, delivered an
excellent address on the legal rights of mar
ried women. The essayist states that he had
selected this as his subject because he re-
garded "women's rights" as a live Issue, and
the laws governing the rights OF women as
wholly unjust and radically wrong. He
thought the laws should be modified so
as 10 conform with the spirit of the
Gge. Among savages women were in slavery.
The more enlightment that prevailed, the
more rights and liberties were accorded 10
women. No progress had been made toward
securing to married women the enjoyment OF
their property until 1S49-50. Since then
various acts had been passed, but the rights
of the husband and wife, as between them
selves, were substantially, if not exactly, az
they were at common law. Tennessee had
made very little progress toward justice TO
married women.
WHERE WOMEN ARE RECOGNIZED.
In Eogland and in the following States all
The real and personal property of married
women was their sole and separate estates,
free from the common law marital rights of
their husbands: Alnbama, Arkansas, Cali
fornis, Delaware, Florids, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, lows, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
Mary land, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mime
sofa, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, Nevada, New York, North Car
DINA, Oregon, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, West Virginia same as New York,
Wisconsin.
In the majority of these States the wife
had all the property rights of feme sole. In
some of them the husband WAS trustee for
! he wife; but, in most of them, he had no
legal right to interfere with or control her
property in any way.
In The following States the wife's property
was far better protected than in Tennessee,
fo-wit: Connecticut, Missouri, Rhode Island,
Kentucky.
TENNESSEE WAS BEHIND
all the States except Virginia. Under the
laws of Tennessee the legal existence of the
wife was merged in that of the husband.
The essayist makes the following strong
points in his paper: SIS there any good
reason for giving the property of either to
he other? Can there not be marriage with
out an absolute merger of all the property
of both in one or the other, TO the exclusion
of the other? Is there any good reason for
holding that marriage is incompatible with
separate and distinct property in' the hus-
band and wife? How does marriage incapa-
DRY of marriage is that it is based on affec-
tion-not property. Certainly the acquisi-
tion OF property is not It's primary object:
RELIC OF BARBARIsM.
In the historic case of Damen and Pyth-
las no one ever supposed that either of them
had the right to the property OF the other
because they loved each other. Is there any
Justice in saying that because a lady loves
and msrries a man he may therefor rob her,
or tbs his creditors may ROB her, or that his
and Distributes may do so?
Yet this is the result OF the lay as it now
stand.
These laws grew out of the savage cendi-
ton and habits of our ancestors, when they
had almost no property, and when there was
no use to property rights of the wife. These
J avs were also in accord with and necessary
TO feudal tenures. Having become firmly set
in English jurisprudence, We have biindly
followed them long after the reason for them
has ceased-we never stopping 10 inquire
whether they are right or wrong Our laws
sre full of similar illustrations OF our conserv-
s tism. We have M ade great progress in all the
arts and sciences, and in the education
and refinement of the people; also in the ac-