Year: 1871

Here is some sensible talk from


Gail Hamilton, in the Ln9epezsdent
as related 70 law, which the ''advau-


ced' thinkers on the woman ques,


ton will do well to ponder:


The relations OF husband and wife
are SO peculiar, their interests so iden-
teal, even though they do not main


tain for each other q romantic affec-


ton, that | do not see how it is pos


sible for the law To consider them two


entirely distinct and independent in


dividuals, like two men, without in


juTiOusly affecting the interests and


claims of Others. The Old Testament


and the New both agree in declaring


that the twain shall be one flesh and


if the formula were written after the


facts, to fit the case, it could not have


been more accurate. We can not leg


islate for that which is esentially one


as if it were in all points two. Divine


law IS utterly regardless Of our pro-
tests and insensIble to our arguments,
and holds just, as strong when weignOre


as when we uphold il.


No law exists which can not be


made the instrument of injustice.


Under the best and wisest laws in
dividuals may suffer. No law can be


framed which shall completely shield


man or woman from the consequence
es of ignorance, ineapacity or folly


1Ou can place the control of property,
the rights Of contract, with husband
and wife, or both, and il will still re-


main that, il woman marry bru-
tai, coarse, selfish, OF lazy man, she


will suffer for il, in mind body and es-
tate; and If man marry a frivolous,
unprincipled, uneducated woman, she
will drag him down. No change il
law can affect the fact that in mar
riage the characters Ofthe parties is of
the first Importance, and the settle
ment Of their property is but subOrdi-
nate. If they are wise and good, they
are more likely TO be happy than if
they are foolish. II they are sick
they will suffer more than if they are
well. All the law can do is to help
people as far as possible against the
consequences of folly, weakness and
wickedness whether their own or an
others. Notwithstanding all the
clamOr against it, this is what the law
claims to do, and what in a large
measure it does. Our American law
is, in the main, beneficent and not
oppressive. It steps in between q wO-
mand's lsef surrender and self-devO-
ton to the man sne loves and the pos.
sible consequences of her act, and re-
tains for her certain rights, and makes
for her certain claims which a wo-
man would seldom think Of doing for
herself.


When a girl is in love with a man,
she does not dream of defending her
self against him. She would gladly
give him all her money, and only
wish she had more to give. If there
were no law at all on this subject, and
the disposition Of her property were
left to each woman at her marriage,
in nine cases out of ten she would re-
linquish the whole care and control Of
it to her husband, without any limita-
tiOn whatever. But the law knows
what she does not know. To the law
her hero is no hero, but a falIible
man, who may very possibly bring
her to grief and poverty; so it hedges
him about with restraints which,
though often insufficient, are greater
than she would ever impose. There
is no need, as there is no use, crying
shame on the Old Bay State for the
laws its men have made. All defect
i've though they be, the Old Bay State
nowhere on the whole, makes a bet
ter figure than on its statute-bOOks.
Nowhere do its men appear more con-
more bent on justice, than
in fashiOning the laws regarding wO-
men. They have not reached perfec-
ton. They have not yet secured
equity. Nor do think equity is to
be secured by equality. They are
heavily weighted in the race, and
they ought to have advantage. The
husband owes to his wife support.
The wife does not owe it to her hus-
band. The law ought to put its
hands into the husbands pocket
and take out enough for the wife's
whether he will or not.
But / can not see any reason why II
should put its hands into the wife's
pocket at all. This, however, is only
on the ground that women and men
are not equal that man has the facul-
ties and women the disabilities for
business; that it is a mans part, and
not wOman's, to earn money.


If this is not sO-if men and women
are to be on the same plane-then I
see not why the wife should not be re-
sponsible for the husbands support,
as well as the husband for tine wife's;
why her property should not go to
pay his debts as entirely, as inevita-
bly,, as his goes to pay hers; why she
should not be equal with himself LA
BILE for the support Of the children.