The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1886-09-16
Matrimony and single Bliss.

In the September number of the
Atlantic Monthly, Mr.. Frank Gay
lord Cook has an article
which he entities 1.-The Laws
Partially to Married Woman The
assertion implied in this designation Of
Mr.. Cooks paper says the Boston
Herald, will be startling to that class
of people who have been led to look
upon woman as constantly wronged at
the hands of the other sex. How man,
the tyrant, could thus have put him.
self at a disadvantage as regards the
weaker vessel. whose campaigns for
rights are in chronic contention. is
not at first easy of explanation. Yet
Mr.. Cook presents facts in this relation
which show that married women have
gained and are now enjoying marked
advantage over men under the law in
the use Of property without the respon-
sibilitics that attend its possession.
This has come about through what a
recent speaker has styled .'too much
transcendentalism in our legislation
Of late years. 1t has arisen from an
evident wish on the part of man, if
they cannot give women the suffrage,
to give them all other reasonable adj
vantages. In the effort to do this mc1
have, as is held, gone beyond the
bounds Of equity aud fairness, and in
the case of married women the law
now ''yields." in the language of Mr..
Joel Prentiss Bishop, ITO wives the
double advantages of matrimony and
single Bliss
The old doctrine of the common
law, that the husband and wife are one
person and that the husband is that
person, is familiar. 1t is the merging
of the wife legally speaking, in the
husband that the recent legislation has
undertaken to remedy. To this end
several statutes have been adopted,
and when the body Of legislation
thus attained is coditied this
appears 10 be the net re-
suit: Whenever the legislation in ques-
ton found the husband with extraor-
binary privileges. to offset which the
entire responsibility for the support of
the family has been put upon him, it
has left him deprived of all those priv
ilcges but unrclicyed of any of the re-
sponsibilities. In their haste to pro-
mote equality in the one case legisla-
tors have omitted to see that there was
inequality in the other. The husband
still remains the head of the family SO
far that he can fix the place of residence
and can have kind of general regu-
lation of the household. but this is
about all the advantage that is left him.
The sum of the privileges obtained
by the wife is that she may hold prop
erty in her own name, no dollar of
which her husband can touch or claim
for the support of the family. Nay.
more, she may engage in business on
her own account, and may make
money in it mot q cent Of which IS she re-
quircd to appropriate for the support
of her family or even of herself.
While this is going on, tue husband is
responsible for any contracts or pur-
chases she may make in his name, un-
less it can be shown that he has for
hidden others to supply her. and even
then he is responsible for the reason
able, necessary expenses of herself. 1t
may be said that the wife's contribution
is in the rearing of the family. But she
may legally neglect this duty, may
leave her husband to do the cooking
and TO look after the children, while
she attends to her private business, the
proceeds OF which she may put in her
private pocket, calling upon the hus
band to support her all the time.
1t would seem to be sufficiently plain
from this that married women are the
most extraordinarily privileged class
that has yet been developed under
American institutions. This law pre-
walls in most of the States of The
Union, though not in quite all of them
There can hardly be a case that more
strikingly illustrates inconsiderat.
action than the legislation which ha
brought it about. Mr.. Cook recon
mends q change which shall make thu
wife partially responsible for tn
support of the family. In the sam'
spirit of consideration for woman
which has recently prevailed, he doe
not ask that her share shall be, ever
proportionally TO her property. equal