The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-03-22
Mrs. Norman de K. Whiiehouse

not a woman suffrage dill as one might
well suppose. Il was y bill To allow
ma rricd women TO own their own prop
cry That mysterious and sacred thing
the common law decreed that the per
sonal property OF married woman
whether possessed before ar acquired
after her marriage was not hers At all.
but was the absolute possession of her
husband Even the wages or earnings
of wife became her husbands prop
erty Whatever our view On the subject
Is to-day. Lord PeEzancc found in 1868
that mot only. in short. Is tn" common
law not unduly harsh in the case Of the
married women. but II * entirely In ac-
cordance with the feelings a the people
Of this country and proceeds on the in
telligible principle that III" wife is the
weaker vessel and that the husband
should be at the head Of the establish
ment.' He continues; The honorable
and learned gentlemen 6of the other
side) asks the House to agree /,
changes which would permit married
woman To have complete ana absolute
powers to alternate her property. to sue
and be- sued, and to enter into
contracts
These are the changes which. ii was
predicted, would destroy the harmony
OF the home deter young men from
marrying and. according Ia the honor
able member from the University Of
Cambridge. would turn England into
beer garden and every woman into a
shrew." We had. however. liberal
defender who explained that the COM
mon law was founded on the physical
incapacity Of the wife to perform the
feudal duties in times when property
was inseparably connected with mill
tary services"-those times presum-
ably having passed away.
In America the same opposition was
encountered and even greater disasters
were predicted. In Ohio. in 1880. 1t was
urged against similar bill that "tJ
adopt 1t would throw a whole popull-
ton morally and politically into con-
fusion" And that this doctrine of
separate estate will stife all the finer
feelings, blast the brightest. faires.
happiest hopes of the human family
and go in direct contravention of tina,
law which bears the everlasting impress
OF the Almighty hand. Sir. | consider
such a scheme not only as wild. but as
wicked. II not in its intention at least
| in it's results"
wicked, another gentleman also found
~ Il OBJECT to the gentleman's propo-
eNion. because II IL a direct contrayen-
ton or one Of the great fundamental
principles OF the Christian religion The
common law only embodies the divine
law And some one else protested be-
cause ne could not see the propriety OF
establishing for women n distinct and
separate interest. the consideration oi
which would OF necessity withdraw their
attention from the sacred duty which
nature. in it's wisdom. assigned to thei,
peculiar care"
And Mr.. owen concludes that II would
not in any way "ameliorate the condI-
ton OF married women"
In 1864. when, through the efforts o,
Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony. "A petit
ton was presented to the New York
Legislature that married women should
control their own earnings, Assembly
man Burnett of Onondaga said: "They
cine sunragists) do not appear to be sat
ished with having unseXed themselves
but they desire TO unsex every female in
the land and to set the whole communit,
ablaze with unhallowed fire
The object of these unsexed women /.
to overthrow the most sacred OF our in.
stitutions. to set at defiance the divin,
law which declares man and wife to be
one, and to establish on its ruins wha
Will be In fact and in principle but q
species of legalized adultery"
In spite OF the fercencss Of the oppo
'sition and the terrifying nature OF tn,
calamities predicted, the Marie,
Woman Property Act" was finally passed
But in order to achieve this triumph tn,
discontinued ones among us fought har,
and bravely for several generations
And to-day, so enlightened are We tina
In number OF our States, workin,
women have also gained control of thei
own wages.