The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1889-01-25

b. allowed to become buaiasl, passnsrs
ifthey choose TO 90 lo2
By the passage Of the pTopoSed law q
married woman Is at once endowed with
all the rights Of womanhood, with the
same rights Of property that single
woman or her husband has, She can
sue in her own name, not in her hps-
bands, as, under the common law, she
must do, even for personal injuries, for
she does not belong to herself "during
Overture" Her husband owns her as
much as he does his horse, He can sup.
press any suits, unless prosecuted in his
name can intercept her mail, or inter.
tere with any Of her natural rights, since
they are all suspended, The bill does
not ask for women suffrage, or mems
rights; It asks simply that a married
woman may be endowed with the same
rights that a single woman has. Mrs,
Packard, in her argument defines some
Of the advantages to result from the pro-
posed law as follows:
One salutary result would be, 1t would
make the family unit in It's interests
instead Of dual as the present legislation
tends TO do, Instead OF protecting the
wife's property as q separate interest,
thus making two interests-mine and
thine-it might be made one interest
ours-op q partnership basis, Thus the
husband and wits might become Zone
In purpose, one In effort, one in plans
one in interest, instead OF house
divided against itself by It's having two
aims and two purposes instead OF ont
interest.
Again, 1t would supersede the need o.
divorces, since all injuries and trespassel
could then be adjudicated upon without
q separation or a divorce, as the Law
would DO equally within reach Of thu
wife, as 1t now is within reach OF thu
husband and tho single woman,
As the case now 10, husband may
say to his wife, III you do insis
upon going to that temperance lecture
! will take the children from you" ant
tue wife, in order 70 get an adjudication
must first get a divorce in order 10 gel
back any Of her children.
But when she Is emancipated ant
thus becomes q partner In the family In
terests, she could calmly reply to thil
threat: avery well, do SO; / can now
get nm adjudication without a divorce
as tho children arc ours now, moi
yours, us they used to BIO under the
common law, and, II the judge decides
have forfeited my claim us o mother L
these children by going TO this temper
ance lecture, so be it." She gets THU
decision without q divorce to obtain II
and the sacredness Of the family insti
tuition Is thus preserved from dissolu
ton.
Again, II would supercede the neces
silly Tor female suffrage ; for, by emancipa
ton, married women secured all right
OF womanhood which she lost by cover
ture, and what more dees she want wher
she has all the rights OF womanhood
Does she want "man's rightsN Their
she must assume mans responsibilities
and discharge man's duties, Yes, ant
become her own protector-aght bel
own battles-paddle her own canoe In
stead OF "being protected" by man, 81
her nature demands she should be. God'l
beautiful law Of the reciprocity Of thu
sexes would be thus iearlully violated
Instead OF quiCkening his manliness int
exercise by Con6ding trust In him as hel
natural protector, she would ALLEVIATE
these manly instincts by this selt.assum
ed independence,
And It Is to this unwomanly position
that all the former woman's rights move
lnents ultimate. A most foolish and un
natural attempt has heretofore beer
made to meet one extreme or another
extreme. From subsection to man al
his slave, to ruling man by the force o
the ballot. Both extremes arc wrong
and the ruling man by force Is more un
womanly and unnatural than this sla
wish subsection, when we consider
woman endowed with subordinate
nature on the plane Of physical force.
/