The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-03-01

Animated Cross Examination.
The Property Rights of Married WON
en- was the subject Of an hours talk &C.
fore the Woman's Council Saturday af-
ternoon. Robert L. Whitehouse, ESQ.,,
was the lecturer, and his paper was very
Instructive and highly entertaining. 1t
is fair to presume that the ladies of the
councfl ara much better informed In re-
card to these matters than ever before.
Mr.. Whitehouse was given unanimous
vote of thanks for his able paper when
he concluded. He said in substance:
MR.. WHITEHOU6E REMARKS.
IT has been we'll said that the position
accorded women by any people Is evil
dences of the stage of civilization reached
by that people So, in savage life, we
lind women occupying very inferior
position compared with that Of man.
The warriors wife, obtained By captive
or barter, was simply a chatrel, slave.
She performed the duties of servant and
beast of burden ami had no rights what
ever. no legal existence except as proper
ty.
In Oriental lands claiming to be civil
jzsd. wonsen were not SO inhumanly
treated as in savage life; nevertheless
their position was Inferior and degrad-
ed. Polygamy Was customary and they
were considered as the instruments of
mans luxury and display-a species of
ornamental property. In Jewish writings
we find the inability OF women to make
contracts distinctly asserted. Fathers
and husbands dissolved the most solemn
vows and contracts of their daughters
and wives. Among the Egyptians, how
sver. women were held in high esteem
and consideration. They were not so
jealousy screened from life as in Other
eastern countries, but were permitted to
90 abroad. Otherwise, it would seem,
Pharaoh's daughter would never have
come across Moses.
In Greece we find morbid advance in
the position accorded to women, particu-
larly in founding the families on the
baais of monogamy.
The view of women as chattel was
sbolished and form of dowery was e.
tablished, but woman as maid, wife or
widow was never with out guardian
and could mako no contract without the
consent Of her guardian.
The legal position OF women under the
early Roman law was extremely low on
account of the social institution of the
times known as the Patria Potestas,
which gave the father unlimited power
over all the other members of the fami
II. 1t gave him the right to be sole
sell his daughters to a husband of his
own selection. Whatever. the wife
acquired became the husbands. and she
was still treated as thing rather than
a person. She was under perpetual guar
diauship and could not manage property
Or inherit it till the time of Augustus,
When system Of trust was devised to
avoid this law.
Under the later Roman jurisprudence
many of tho disabilities of women were
removed and in the third and fourth
centuries of the Christian year we find
the position of women nearly as favor
able as it is now. But loose notions
were entertained concerning the mar
rage tie during this period. Marriage
was regarded as mere civil contract,
a partnership at will.
The influence of Christianity from this
time on did more than anything else
to elevate the condition Of women. In
contrast to the Pagan view of marriage
as mere partnership at will, marriage
was considered as holy ordinance and
looked upon as the lifelong union of
one man and one woman. The canon
law or law Of the church, however, did
not grant property rights to married
women and under the feudal system
which now came into prominence, mar
ried women were also debarred from &C.
quiring and holding property. She was
under control of her husband,
who was answerable for her wrongs
on others, the law giving him
the power to exercise restraint by
beating her If necessary. These princi-
pies were adopted into tina common
law u GDBidOu. A1Uer the I6uQ2I SyS-
tenn was abolished the way was clear to
DO away with these disabilities, but they
had been so long imbedded that they
slowly.
Under the English common law the
woman lost by marriage her separate
legal existence. Husband and wife be-
came one and he was that one, his prfn-
clple is the foundation of all the COM
mon law provisions relating to married
rights and disabilities. A mar
ried woman at common law had no pow
er to make a valid contract if her hus-
band was third party. She could, how
ever, be the agent of her husband and in
that character make contracts binding |
upon him when expressly authorized. |
6 UGH agency was also and still ia i'm
RI ed in certain cases where the wife
contracts for necessaries and in such |
ces2s the husband is bound by her con-
tracts since the husband bound himself
Oh marriage to provide for his wife's |
support. II the wife leaves the husband,
however, without just cause he is re-
lieved of the duty of maintainance. But