National Republican., 1888-04-24
EMANCIPATION NEEDED.


stitute-Approva of the Article anh
Bill by \. q. Riddle, Attorney Of
the District of Columbia.
The first question for consideration IS
what Is the legal status of married women
in the District Of Columbia to-day? If It
can be shown that the law IN its present con-
diton docs not sufficiently protect her, an
enlightened legislation should hasten to
remedy its defects. It is well.known
legal principle that in the absence of stat.
utory cnactments the law of the land
to-day is the common law us II eXlstcl
in England at the birth Of this nation. What
was the status Of married woman at con-
mon law? Bymarriagc she lost her identity,
ceased to hc person in the eyes Of the law,
became merged in the legal existence of her
husband was no longer an integral portion
Of the COmmmity-in short, became in law
and fact chattel. Such was the common
law. such Is the common law, and, In the nh
scncc Of statutory cn0ctments ahrogating It's
provisions, such Is the law Of the land to-
day.
What inirirgcmcnts upon this law have
lucn made by the statutes of the District of
Columbia? A careful and exhaustive en-
animation will show tlat every enactment
women refers to property rights and t0
property rights only. Those rights have
been icalOusly guarded, and within their
scope afford ample protection. But prop
Cfty rights are not the only rights dear 10
women, and are not the only rights in the
exercise of which she should be protected.
The conclusion Is Irresistible that except Us
to property rights the legal status of II
married woman In this District is what 1t
has lcen for centuries: no better, no worse
Among the rights inalenable 10 man, and
! use the term man In It's restricted sense
thereby excluding women, are personal
liberty, personal security, and private prop
city. For every infringement OF these rights
| the law provides q swift and adequate pun
isEmcnt. Leaving out Of consideration the
light Of private property, n married woman
stands In the eyes Of the law unprotected as
| against her husband. An unmarried woman
| is clothed with all the rights and armed with
| all the weapons that a man is. y married
woman, with added obligations, added
duties, and added responsibilities, has fewer
| rights, less protection, and no legal iden-
| tity: her burdens are increased, her weapons
Of defense diminished. With more eXpc-
| iiCEcc, more maturity, more necessity for
| the exercise uf the rights of personal liberty
| and personal security than an unmarried
woman, she is In the eyes Of the law Of in
fnitely less consequence and Importance.
Tie offspring Of an unmarried woman Is
! hers, the offspring of Il married woman Is
| not her own. in other words, so far as
ownership Is concerned, the law places
premium upon illegtimacy In every stu-
| alton in life apart from her property rights
| n married woman Is subject to the whim,
! caprice and oppression of her husband. lie
| may COerCe her conscience, dictate to her in
! every minute detail of her life, restrain her
| Of hcr liberty, infringe upon any right cy
] ln EnIrnl n L.
sufficient answer that he IS her husband.
| That this does not occur more frequently Is
due. not to legal protection, but TO the in
| nutc courtesy and magnanimity of the
American man. The history of Mrs. Pack
ard is sufficient evidence of what may oc-
cur. and one occurrence IL sufficient iu,tiii-
| cation for the passage of this bill. Every
looIihOle for the abuse of married women
| under the sanction of law should be closed.
Ii Is favoritc remark of courts and text
! writers that marriage is contract, but IL
stands All anomaly in the law of contracts,
| and the position of married women there
under Is unique. Contracts are supposed
to confer mutual rights, and impose mutual
| obligations, but in this contract one of the
parties therein loses all rights except the
right of property. This legislation does not
ask for mans right which is In effect that
for which female suffragists clamOr. 1t
simply asks that the same natural aud in
hcrCnt rights which the law bestows upon
man he given woman, ,and that they shall not
lie lost by marriage. Give the woman the
right TO protect herself within her family
relations as a wife and the number of di-
vnrccs will be materially decreased. Let
Tie law yindicate her rights rs a married
not as divorced woman. The passage OF
similar laws by the states should have their
weight, and " perchance any of fnis pro-
posed legislation should he duplcatory In
| at, t,,.il 10, 10 s,ca
guards thrown about the wives and daugh-
tiers Of this District can harm no one
To recaptulate, then, married woman
in the District of Columbia stands to-day,
except as her property rights, In the eyes of
the law chattcl, a legal nonenity. Ciyili-
zatiOn is advanced great strides have been
made in the law OF property rights, but the
legal status Of married women in the Dis.
trict of Columbia, except us TO property
rights, remains what il was centuries ago.
May the American Congress of 1855 Sc
cure for themselves the high honor Of max
lang the American government the pioneer
government Of the world In the cmancipa-
tiOn of their married women by the passage
Of the bill "To change the common law Of
marriage to the customs of modern civilza
tiun by the emancipation Of married women
in the District Of Columbia, the forts and
arscnals and the territories Of the United
StatCs.'
SUBSTITUTE BILL.
Tie following bill is TO he presented tC
the Senate judiciary us a substitute" fol
Senate bill 2l1i, now before them viz:
Rc 1t enacted by the Senate aud House o
Representatives In Congress assembled, Tha'
from and afterthc passage of this act woman
shall retain the same legal existence and the
same legal personality after marriage as be
fore mairiage and the rights and responsi
hilitics of the married parents in relation I,
their children shall be equal; Provided, Thi
act shall not confer upon the wife tn,
right 10 vote or hold Office except as Is other
wise provided by Law,
SEC. >. All laws. statutory or common, II
conflict with the provisions of this act arr
hereby repealed.
L.. p. W. p.
WAsnlNGToN, d. G., April %, 1855.
The following approval of the forcgoin!
is from the Hon. \. Il. Riddle, attorney 70
the District of Columbia:
The above article states the law of marie
women prevailing in the District of COlumh
with substantial accuracy In all other II
>pcCts, except as to her property rights, Sh
remains here the fcme covert OF the old Eng
lish law of 1i16, Il term which aptly define
her effaCemcnt as Il human heing.
The substitute bill' Is, In legal effect, quit
The same as the original bill,
twOuld commit our people to the policy q
this legislation without the slightest hcIitu
tiun. Very respectfully, \. q. RIDDLE
4 ,T b,, nist nj ,rI ',l