New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-03-12
LIABLE FOR DEBTS.
Hiss BuIIozca Discusses Married
Women and Wood Bill.

" said Miss Emile Builo"as cha-iAie1 "a
the legislative committee OF various women Or
,s,izatso,s against the Wood BILL now in the
Assembly This bill Is being opposed by some
,,ronlinent women, for the reason that IL increases
the married voman's liability. The bill MAKES lne
v,rna,, who purchases the Deecssaries OF lie for
herself or her family liable FOR the same unless
en- has snacl6cally stated that they are on her
husbands credit. and not her own The creoitor
can recover from her however, only AFTER hrs' Sc
c,,rsnr Judgment against her husband, the execu-
tion Of which has been returned unsatished that
&c the wife is liable If the husband has nothing. IN
less she has expressly stated TO the radesman that
she VIII not liable, in which case the tradesrnan
takes his chances.
The bin is being opposed on the ground that 1t
VIII make the wife liable for the support OF the
FAMILY that il viii aid the who is trying 10
get out Of supporting his family. and work hard
ship on the OF the poorer classes for these
reasons.
AS matter OF fact it will Go nothing of the
kind People in that station of life buy for cash
only They have no Great. If the corner grocery
trusts them il is to the extent Of not more than
dollar or two and such cases never get into court
Neither would this Law stutify in any way the
laws making a man liable for the support Oh MS
family
..On the contrary the bill will hit far different
class OF .-onen-fhose who buy their husbands
credit far beyond their means. Some women VIII
go and order a dozen elegant costumes made up
on their husbands credit when they know per-
fectlv well they are not able to pay for them
The law at present regards wife as her husbands
agent Whatever she buys he il responsible for
Il is the remnant Of the spirit Of the ola Enghsh
common law the femme convert idea, which PraO-
ticalIy regarded the married woman as wiped out
OF existence Her legal existence was merged in
tint Of her husband. All her property became his,
even TO the clothes her back; and. in return
she mad no responsibility. no liability; ne was
liable for all
..Beginning back in 1885, the laws Of New-York
have been modified. until the married woman
stands before the law in exactly the position OF
the single woman AS regards the holding OF prop
erty Her property remains her own on marriages
she can acquire property make contracts and
control her earnings, exactly like single woman.
A married womaas property is in no way liable
for her husbands debts although his is liable for
hers.
Taking advantage of this fact, many men put
all their property in their wives names Some men
go on conducting large business affairs living lux
rriousy and yet if they incur liabilities creditors
cannot get hold OF a cent. 1t is all in the wife's
name and cannot be touched. The provisions in
tended for the protection OF the wife have been
abused. and made to serve fraudulent purposes
Did YOU ever hear Of going through bank
ruptcy and living in just fine style afterward as
they die before while creditors whistled for their
money?
our present bankruptcy law is another interest
ing example of the growing spirit Of mercy in our
laws once the debtor was a criminal before the
law. He put in prison and kept there in
definitely deprived Of any possibility of paying his
debts. Little Dorrit' IS perhaps the most salient
picture Of this period of the law ever presented
the lay mind.
Then came long period during which the
debtor was not imprisoned. but Judgment could
stand against him. ready TO be enforced the minute
he accumulated anything, effectuaHy preventing
him from getting start in business again. Now,
under the federal bankruptcy law, go
Inent TO his creditors out of his available assets
J q Of Tha
DEBTOR. just as the married women's property acts
haze been FOR the protecron OF the wife
But through a combination OF the two dishonest
peIsoiis nave been aole 10 work great abuses. Men
wives names. go through bankruptcy, leave cred
u course. certain amount OF disgrace attaches
70 solAs through nankfuptcy, but people seeking
are after is the money The failure OF big broker
s o@H'g Ie ~aS notea IN the papers short time
as i ever did How Go they do it?
men against this class OF people. II enables them
- btlhs SUIT against the wife If IT is found that the
interests OF common honesty, ana / hope # will
like those OF men, then they should be Wiling 70
~ ~ ne responsibilities entailed by those rights
Inc TACT that they cannot vote that large channel
closed them has nothing To do VIII +j Is
Their property rights baVs See 10 @In t9is matter
Ihey cannot avoid the responsibilities entailed nv
s9en rights II women want to go back to the DAYS
Mhen they were regarded as the husbands agents
~ ,eHerything and could have either rights or
-e-'llL tlSs very wei. For my part I am dad 70
see the advent of laws which place upon them hot6
he
epo11 i,, Only n tns way think. they occupy
Il have heard number Of women say since these
ns have been under discussion that they preferred
the Coggeshall bill TO the Wood bill AS a mater
q Iact. The CoggeshaI bill is a good deal more
dangerous to women than the Wood bill ana a
so9G eeai more likely TO work disastrous results in
RED woman liable for every contract She -ntars
into. Previous to this there has siva1s sue enters
hoie for wife to get out Of her liability when she
nae lnoorsed her husbands contracts notes or
E1lnteFer they were Owing to the ancient standing
OF the wife before the law as her husbands apenf
ana a lack OF any specific statute on this pojnt'
wife not held to her liability in the mater ' o9
ind9Tsement Of her husbands contracts. This has
ment, and has tended to keep her out of her hus
pSno 8 business affairs. undoubtedly conducting to
e s1ety OF heT hoIdngs IN the varying fortunes OF
business enterprise. Should this bin pass think
~ T you 1eha 70 increase the chances OF secretion
" IL nuspan1s part, ara Of his getting all her
property away from her The danger Of this comes
lbs and outs OF business and their Judgment in
I1sklng their property II a woman orders an ele-
not be collected from her husband she knows per
feetly wei what she is about. But she cannot
reasonably be expected TO understand the risks
ana intr1cacies Of business venture 1 think this
with his vife's nrnnert! o nbsono 20 make away
the various married wonen's property acts were en-
acted to prevent stiI. I am inclined to think that
Il women are going to hold property it is a good
thing for them to be compelled TO learn how TO
dren they Will be treated Ike childran '' ei'''-
Tho Cavanagh bill. now before the Senate Judi
never been any children and the wife dies intestate
hT a ea eTe 9nera al life b Interest in
e sc ! think it is toe much bug too little ! want
M. 70 get hair interest, not third and I want
this, not for the mans sake but for the wonlans
want both widow and widoWer to share alike-no
absolutely when there are children and one-haif
when there are no children. That seems to me the
only fair way. 1 can't any Justice in letting
two-thfrds Of the real go hack to the family
bere js on a mhen mere are no children
fo- the protection Of the mother There have been
he wifi