Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-17
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
70 OUR LAWMAKERS.
v.,ried-wsmans Aet-A Protest from
JuAFe sf the old school.

.osrried-woman's act, and comment Is
;rvi,ed. so that the act may be made as
nsrfect as practicable. l have long
considered the present statute IS to
sspsrate estates Of married women as
ths most pernicious and demsralizing
nrcyision Intellectual in protection
of the married woman and destruc-
tive Of that holy and sacred tie in
tended by the law Of God aud
the common law to be the basis Of do
nestle felicity and social good. This
modern Interpolation Of crude states
manship violates the law Of God and hu-
manity, in that it separates in all mate
rial interests man and wife, whom God
hath joined together, and substitutes the
venal and groyelling motive OF proper
ty for that only safe, pure, and
rational tie which should or can bind in
this heayen-ordained relation. 1t
shakes and destroys the funda-
mental and only safe basis OF
human society. l protest against
such a law as dangerous, and only
fruitful in discord and misery, and
can only be tolerated in latitdde
where marriage is barter and divorces
facilitated and encouraged. Neither the
present statute nor the one proposed
will accomplish the object intended in
the protection Of the feme corert. She
may be as sole and separate as you
tleaSe, but give her the power to en-
cumber or sell her estate, and so long
as she is Of the weaker sex and
woman. and the husband is q man,
he will have and use the pow
er to control the estate and
waste it. | have known more than
one instance which proves my asser-
tion. In one case married woman had
A good estate settled on her by deed
intended to protect against an IMPROVE
dent husband but she had the power
TO sell and cucumber. At the instance
Of the husband the wife encountered the
property, a valuable and handsome
home, and all TO raise money, which
was obtained and invested in the tobac-
co trade. The consequence was that
the money was lost, and the g sole and
separate estate embracing the home,
was sold and lost TO the family. can
not conceive that such results can be
prevented so long as the woman has
power to dispose Of or cucumber
her estate. Such law can only breed
domestic broils and connubial discord.
! protest against it as the most alarm
ing and dangerous violation Of the most
sacred and fundamental laws Of God,
and the only security for the elevation
and purity Of woman. The present
Virginia statute is only an imitation Of
similar enactments in the northern
States.
An alarming commentary on such
laws is found in the practical looseness
of the marriage relation and the COM
mon, everyday resort to divorces, so
frequent in these States. North Caro-
lima adopted a similar law for married
women, and her judicial calendar pre-
sents an instance of the beauties Of the
system in a case decided in 1873 by the
Supreme Court, in which a rife is
plaintiff and husband defendant in an
acton Of ejectment brought to eject the
latter from lands. including the home,
held as the separate estate Of the wife,
and Judgment was rendered, upon appeal,
for the plaintiff. Iide Manning IS.
Manning, 70 y. c., 293 4; and also re-
ported in 2Sth Vol. Am. Reports. \
novel and alarming precedent, and a
blot upon the civilization OF the age.
Under this law the sheriff may 60 with
a writ Of possession, tear the husband
from the harassing embraces Of the
wife, and land him, bag and baggage,
in the public highway. This is a d.
vorce at common law harsh, violent,
and not tempered with the milder pro-
ceediDgs Of divorce in a court of equity.
No such case, so far as we know, has
occurred in Virginia, but it is not I'M
reasonable to expect some stalwart
woman, under the teachings and pro-
lection Of the " Married W oman's Act, :"
may defy decency, and assert her =" sole
and separate rights" and out-Herod
Anna Dickinson, Mrs. Woodruff, and
others in the bold assertion Of woman's
rights. | assume that there is no true
and safe basis for social elevation and
happiness other than that which pre-
serves and protects woman in her proper
sphere, as the most potent, gentle, and
essential to society. In no other sphere
can she be a true woman, capable OF
exerting her gentle and refining intiu-
encc upon man, and filling the elevated
and noble position assigned her by PrOvi-
dence. This cannot be accomplished, but
in its results the richest gift of Heaven
to man will be prostituted and marred
10y such legislation as is proposed. The
result Of such dethronement of woman
from her high position will be to render
man more rude and manageable, to
destroy the beauty and power Of woman,
and may lead to the conditions of bar
barous nations, which assign her to
drudgery and labor, and men to brutal
ity and self-indulgence. 1t is said that
history repeats itself, and such has been
the condition Of society and is now in
heather lands. | do, therefore, object
and protest against such statutes as the
present or that proposed, and appeal to
our lawmakers to consider the conse-
quences and boldly refuse TO follow the
demoralizing remedies Of expediency
adopted by the reckless legislation Of
other States, especially when the fruits
are so manifest and prolific in poisoning
the fountains Of social virtue and hap
piness.
There is no necessity for such laws,
and although there may be individual
cases Of hardship, yet the settled pow
ers Of court Of chancery to make set
Elements in proper cases on the wife,
and the right Of grantors in deeds to
impose restrictions and guard the set
Elements Of estate, are all that the gen.
eral interests Of society require.
But if such law is to exist upon
the statute-bOok Of Virginia, would
suggest a. fitting amendment that it
be enacted that the woman, along with
other sole and separate estate" shall
be entitled to the boots and breeches Of