Year: 1867

we nOt1ce very general tendency on the part of the clergy to make an indiscrim- mate attack on the Connecticut divorce system; Winsted clergyman even going so far as to remark that we seem to have made Sodom our model. There is one as- pect of this question, however, which these gentlemen have not taken into considera- tion-that our divorce laws are the great and almost the only protection afforded married women by law. Whoever, there. fore, merely restricts the grounds of divorce to the single crime indicated by scripture, without any compensating legislation in their favor, would be doing them great injury.

 As long as human nature is what it is there must be cases of irreconcileable diff ference between man and wife, and in such cases the law takes the part of the husband Of the property each owned at the time of their intermarriage he has his part entire, and the use of hers during life; of their joint earnings and savings he has the whole; of their children and of all family affairs, he has the absolute control. A Connecti- cut wife has, in fact, few legal rights that 8 Connecticut husband is bound to respect He cannot indeed, force her to labor for him without pay, and his heirs and personal representatives may be compelled to render up the principal of that original estate of hers whose bones he has picked for a life time. In case, also, of her death before him, no living children having been born to them her real estate is taken from him; and, in case of his death owning real estate, she is entitled to the use of third of it during life, butt a husband may. at his option. convert his real estate into personal and leave his wife entirely destitute.

 Such is the sum of the protection afford ed married women by law. As our Stat utes now stand, however, the wife in case of seriously unfair treatment has sure le- gal remedy. She sues for divorce and if successful is allowed, in most cases, a third of the husbands whole property to be hers absolutely, and immediate and uncondi- tional restitution of the property she own ed at the time of her marriage. That these divorce laws are altogether right or wise we do not claim; for they make separation an object for wife in every case where that confidence and affection which in most cases characterize the marriage relation, are at an end-If she proceeds against her unworthy husband at once, she secures her own liberty, her former property, and a fair share of his; if she meekly endures him through life, she is probably cut off with shilling at the end-But we do as- sert most confidently that these laws indi- rectly alleviate an evil of great magnitude, and that restriction of the advantages af- forded married women by our liberal di vorce laws without corresponding modifi- cation of our illiberal marriage laws, would be an undesirable change.

 While, therefore, we do not blame our ministers for insisting on the letter of the divine law, we entreat them not to forget its spirit; and if our married women have indeed been allowed to steala few handsful from the great harvest of American liberty, would it not be more in accordance with the great Example to make reasonable pro- vision for their wants, before rebuking the theft.