Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-24
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
TO Our LAWMAKERS.
n, Sinsic. Dad MARRIED. womeo's Laws ~.
tended hy Theis Author.
ALTON, NELSON COUNTY, VA, }

tended by Thc,s Author.
ALTON, NELSON COUNTY, VA, }
January %, 1856. J
10 the Editor eff the Dispatch:
In your Issue of Sunday last appear
ed "A Protest from Judge Of the Old
School Judge William NJ. Tredway,
OF Pittsylssnia county-agalnSt the
new laws Of Virginia that protect the
property-rights Of women.
As the author of these laws / beg
the privilege of hasty reply to show
his errors as TO their origin, history,
and propriety. He says The Viz
ginia statute rs only an imitation offs SINH
lar ensctments in the northern States.
An alarming commentary on such
lawsis found in the practical looseness OF
the marriage relation and the common,
everyday resort 10 divorces so frequent
IN these States" His arguments, based
on false premises, not to say glaring
prejudice, are followed by his appeal to
our lawmakers TO consider the conse-
queDces, aud boldly refuse TO follow
the demoralizing remedies Of expediency
adopted by the reckless legislation of
other States, especially where the fruits
are so manifest and prolific in poisoning
the fountains OF social virtue and happi-
ness. After citing two isolated cases,
one in Virginia and one in North Caro-
lima, under similar laws-which latter
case he characterizes as Z" a novel and
alarming precedent and blot upon the
civilization Of the age his c1HeIu-
ding sentence in suggesting an amend
ment to the " Married Womau's Act"
as proposed in the Virginia Lac Jour-
nal Of November, 1885, by the three
able, experienced and learned revisers
Of the Code, for the enlargement and i'm
JroremeRt Of this new system, is most
hitting and ungalldat one, considering
the tone of his whole article.
lie says ." would suggest as fit
ting amendment that it be enacted that
the woman, along with other sole and
separate estate, shall be entitled to the
boots and breeches Of the husband, and
hold them as heirloOms to descend TO
the oldest daughter in succession
1t is not surprising that few nom
progressive Nirginians-who are hon
ored relcts Of the past-should witness
with holy horror the uprooting Of that
system Of common law and equity jul
nsprudence built up and fostered for
centuries by our mother country. But
in 1904, by acts Of Parliament, the
most conservative. people Of any, per-
baps, brushed away the dust Of ages
from her system and gave TO women
more protection as to property-rights
than is proposed in Virginia. History
proves that while the courts have been
for ages assimilating the common law
to the civil law, the legislatures the
world over have been putting the doc
,rineS Of the courts into the form Of sta
tuteS. until to-day there is not civilized |
State, Government, or Power on earth |
that denies TO woman her rights IN her
orH yropeyty-Nirginia being the last
on, to WELD to this demand in 1877.
Authority, Bishop on the Law Of Mar
ried Women.l Why should we hest
tate to improve and Crystalline by le-
gislation a policy that has gradually
fastened itself upon all enlightened and
civilized society: Why should not
law conform to equity: The civil law
which grew up and was matured under
the high civilization Of Rome in the
zenith Of her power and sublime in
tellect always treated the wife as
partner, and not as slave. Hence
We see woman in due course OF time
elevated from the humble position of
the rude Sabine captive to the high
and splendid place Of the noble mother
of the heroic Gracohi-tO those grand,
elevated, and true positions God in
tended hor TO Occupy-the queen of
thrones, the angel of mercy, and the de-
voted wife and peer in social relations
Of the trueSt husband among natures
noblemen. The doctrines of Rome, as
promulgated by the Justinian code lin
some respect modified and imprOved)
obtain at the present day in all Christen-
dom. KSuch is the law of the Code Of Ma
pOleon, the grandest digest Of the civil
law that has been made since the time
Of Justinian.
Any law is wrong that does not fully
protect a woman in her estate simply
because she, IN obedience to natures
law, agrees to enter into the marriage
relation, il being a mere civil ordinance
under which the teachings of the Divine
code are carried. But says Judge
Tredwsy: "Such law can only breed
domestic broils and connubial discord.'
And he argues to prove that the fire.
Quency of divorces in the northern
States results from the existence Of such
laws therein.
The experience here in Virginia,
Maryland. kentucky, and all the south
ern States is conclusive proof against
the charge that such laws breed domes-
tic troubles.
The loOseness Of marriage laws in the
North and West existed more than half
a century before those States enacted
to protect women in their pro-
perty-rights. Hence the frequency of
divorces there are not traceable to the
laws, but to other and
widely different causes. See Bishop
on the Laws of Marriage and Divorce.)
Other able writers have clearly demon
strated the truth of history, that
"a woman's rights" " free-loveism,"
and such like, in the North and else
where over the globe, are the results of
impure education and inseparable 1
causes peculiar to mixed societies,
mongrel people, and dense populations.
The proof of this can be readily &
stated. None Of the northern States
passed such laws before 1874, and a c
majority Of them did so within the {
last twenty or thirty years, while
= ffee-loveism," the baneful exotic
transplanted from the hotbeds of So
,ial corruption in the East, has existed
n the North for nearly a century. On
he o,bar hand Such nrofecfiva laws 40 a