Year: 1876

AS an example of misrepresentation
and protection, (and we are sure that


many persons might from their own
observation recite similar one), we
submit the following, furnished by


Judge Henry R. Selden, of the New
York Bar:


An educated and refined woman, who
/ had been many years before deserted by
| her drunken husband, was living in a
small village of Western New York,


securing, by great economy and intense
| labor in fine needle work, the means of


living and of supporting her two daugh-


ters at an academy, the object. of her
| life being to give them such an educa-
| tion as would enable them to become
| teachers, and thus secure to them some


degree of independence when she could


no longer provide for them. The daugh-


ters were good scholars, and were favor


ties in the school so long as their moth


er was able to maintain them there. A


young man, the nephew and clerk of a


wealthy but miserly merchant, became


acquainted with the daughters, and


was especially attentive to the older


one. The uncle disapproved of the con-


duct of his nephew, and failing to con-





the circulation of the vilest ISLANDERS


against mother and daughters. He was


man of wealth and influence. They


were almost unknown. The mother had
but recently come to the village, her
object having been to secure to her
daughters the educational advantages


which the academy afforded. Poverty,


as well as perhaps an eXcusable if not


laudable pride, compelled her to live in


obscurity, and consequently the assault


upon their characters fell upon her and


her daughters with crushing force. Her


employment mainly ceased, her daugh-


ters were of necessity withdrawn from


school, and all were deprived of the


means, from their own exertions, of


sustaining life. Had they been in fact


the harlOts which the miserly scoundrel


represented them to be, they would not
have been so utterly pOwerless to resist


the assault. The mother in her despair
naturally sought legal redress. But
how was it to be obtained? By the law
; the wife's rights were merged in those
of the husband. She had in law no in


dividual existence, and consequently no
action could be brought by her to re-
dress the gTievOus wrong; indeed, ac-
} cOrding to the LdIU she had suffered no
, lUrOnq, but the husband had suffered


all, and was entitled to all the redress.


Where he was the lady did not know
she had not heard from him for many
: years. Her counsel, however, ventured
r to bring an action in her behalf, Joining
, the husbands name with hers as the
law required. When the cause came to
r trial, the defendant made no attempt to
e sustain the charges which he had made,
I we'll knowing they were as groundless
as they were cruel; but he introduced
and proved a release of the cause of ac-
D tion, signed by the husband, Teciting a
q consideration of fifty dollars paid to


him. The defendants counsel had some


difficulty in proving the execution of


the release, and was compelled to intro
s duce as a witness the constable who
= had been employed to find the vagabond
f husband and obtain. his signature. His


testimony disclosed the facts that he
found the husband in the forest in one
: of our northeastern counties, engaged in
2 making shingles, presumably stealing


timber from the public lands and con-


vertiug it into the means of indulging
i his habits of drunkenness), and only
= five dollars of the fifty mentioned in
e the release had in fact been paid. The
! court held, was compelled to hold, that
-, the party injured IN UieU Of the lG1U
had received full compensation for the
s wrOng-and the mother and daughters,
O with no means of redress, were left to
starve. This was the act of the repre-
sentative of the wife and daughters to
3 whom we are referred as a better pro-
r tectOr of their rights than they them
f. selves could be.


J. Had the action proceeded to judgment
n without the interference Of the husband,
= and damages been allowed by the jury,
d the money would have belonged to the
4 husband, and the wife could not have
d touched one cent of it. Had her attor-
h ney paid it to her, it would have been
h at the risk of being again compelled to
d pay it to the drunken husband, had he
n demanded it. Yet is this, and hundreds


Of similar cases, the result of laws which


we are told men frame for the benefit
l. of women. The wrongs here recited
,. though heinous in the men who perpe-
d trated them, were more in the laws


which sustained them and contained
F. nothing for the protection of women.