|
|
|
To
the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky: We,
the undersigned citizens and residents of this Commonwealth, being
satisfied that our statutory discriminations against the property rights
and privileges of married women are unreasonable and unjust, most
earnestly and respectfully petition your Honorable Body to enact such
law as will remove said discriminations, and give to married women the
same rights and powers that are enjoyed by married men; to acquire,
hold, and dispose of all kinds of property; and also to equalize the
rights of Dower and Curtesy. Property
Rights of Kentucky Wives. In
order that our modern civilization should be symmetrical in all its
phases, the laws must of necessity keep pace with material, educational,
and social progress. As
education instills and fosters self-reliance, and improved condition
widens the sphere of individuals, more democratic laws should be enacted
in order to permit a practical use of education and better condition.
The "Old Common Law" as it prevailed in the last
century would be entirely unsuited to the need of our present advanced
state, and legislators recognizing the unsuitableness of the unjust and
circumscribed measures are wisely blotting them from our statute books,
and substituting those more suited to the needs and advancement of an
intelligent, self-reliant constituency.
The old common law, with all its provisions of benefits and
protection for the past, was transplanted to the virgin soil of this new
continent, under new conditions, and from that hour the latent forces of
manhood and womanhood have been developing, and since the birth-hour of
this American Republic, the advance has been so steady, and rapid, that
the supremacy of mind over matter, has been established a thousand fold
more in the last century, than in all the previous ages of history.
None have been precluded from entering the car of progress; sex
and color have alike been benefited.
The common law, when it was formulated,
was a compendium of the beneficent and protective thought of
eighteen-hundred years. Decades
and years are still fashioning themselves in cycles of time, and as the
volumn [sic]grows with each passing moment, so mind is advancing
and Right and Justice with lighted torches are guiding humanity into the
Light and Liberty which God would have all men and women enjoy. As
a proof that legislation suited to the times, conduces to the happiness
and welfare of a people, it is only necessary to inquire into the
specific abrogations of the common law, in many states of the Union, and
the fact is more significant, since such changes in the laws are more
common, in the most prosperous and rapidly developing portions of our
country. In every
legislative body in the United States, the law that married women are
perpetual children and incompetent to have control of their own
property has been partially or entirely obliterated, or demand made
that it should be done. There is nothing more repugnant to a man, than the idea of
taking unto himself a wife, that would not be thoroughly capable and
self-reliant in her performance of duty, as help-mate, wife and mother.
But Kentucky law, emphasized by the customs of our social system,
requires that a married woman shall be capable and thoroughgoing in all
things save the management of her own property.
Then she is an irresponsible person, a perpetual child, in the
management of her own finances, even if every dollar the family
possesses belongs to her. The
serious significance of this decree is that this idea has been held as a
fundamental principle in the framing and construction of the law.
The married women of Kentucky are bearing this great injustice
to-day, and the appeals that have been made to our legislature for
"Equal Property Rights," is an evidence that Kentucky wives
are weary of being nonentities, and remaining in perpetual legal
childhood. Just persons
have always considered it a wrong, and many have felt that in the eyes
of the law, it was almost a crime to be a married woman.
Men as well as women are being astounded every day at unearthing
the laws relating to married women as recorded in our code, and the
injustice is so incredible, they can scarcely believe in their
existence. Kentuckians are
proverbial the world over for their chivalry, gallantry, and exalted
regard for women. Chivalry and Gallantry are graceful characteristics of
highly civilized nations, but Justice is a law of God, and must
be linked with worldly graces to make perfect manhood.
The following is an instance of the
justice dealt out to married women by Kentucky law: A woman worth one hundred thousand dollars, that has not been
settled upon her as her separate estate, marries a man not worth a penny
and it all becomes his the instant he promises “With all my worldly
goods, I thee endow.”
The woman comes from the marriage altar not even the legal
possessor of the clothes she has on her back.
She cannot make a will, and if the husband die [sic] one
week after the marriage, fifty thousand dollars of the wife's money goes
to his nearest male relative, unless he generously will [sic] the
defenseless wife her own estate. That
is one of the laws married women in their helpless condition are forced
to accept. Any man that has
an atom of justice in his make up, cannot fail to see that this wrong is
supplemented with insult. A
further perusal of the statutes reveals the following laws: In Chapter 52, Article 3, under the heading of
"Husband and wife" is this law:
"Marriage shall give to the husband, during the life of the
wife, no estate or interest in her real estate, including chattels real,
owned at the time, or acquired by her after marriage, except the use
thereof, with power to rent the real estate for not more than three
years at a time, and receive the rent. If however, the wife die during the term for which her land
is rented, the rent shall go to her husband, if alive, subject to her
debts." Again in
Chapter 118, Section 2, under the heading of "Wills" is this
law: "Every person of
sound mind, not being under twenty-one years of age, nor a married
woman, may by will dispose of any estate, right or interest in real
or personal estate, that he may be entitled to at his death, which would
otherwise descend to his heirs or pass to his personal representatives,
and though he may become so entitled after the execution of his
will." Again in
Chapter 52, Article 4, Section 1, this law:
"Where there is issue of the marriage born alive, the
husband shall have an estate for his own life in all real estate owned
and possessed by the wife at the time of her death, or of which another
may be then seized to her use," &c., and again, Section 2.
"After the death of her husband, the wife shall be endowed
for her life of one-third of the real estate of which he, or
anyone for his use, was seized of an estate, in fee simple, at any time
during the coverture, unless her right to such dower shall have been
barred, forfeited or relinquished."
Again, "A husband shall have the whole surplus of a
deceased wife's personal estate," and in the next clause,
"If the intestate leaves issue, the widow shall have one third,
and if no issue, one-half such surplus."
This code of beneficent laws for the
intelligent, thoroughly capable married women of the "Old
Commonwealth" virtually debars a married woman from owning
anything, for if she has a princely fortune in real estate, she has no
right during her life to the income from such estate, and no right to
will it at her death, which in plain language is not owning it at
all. What independence
or pleasure would a man derive from the possession of an estate, even if
it rivaled Vanderbilt's, if he had to ask his wife for a nickel to pay
his street car fare, or for money to settle with his merchant tailor?
Surely the legislative halls would be bombarded, if justice were
not speedily incorporated in the law.
Why should a husband control the proceeds of all his wife's
realty during her life, and after her death inherit the proceeds of all
her realty during his life, as well as come into fee simple
possession of all her personalty, while the wife on the death of
the husband only has the use of one-third of his estate?
Are the needs of man and woman so different?
Does it take less food and clothing to bring health and comfort
to a woman than a man? Is a
shelter from the blasts of winter more necessary for a man than a woman?
When we remember that the worldly possessions of the mass of
married people are so small, that they only help to bring comfort, and
some luxuries, while the avocation brings the living, and that the man
gets much more for his labor than the woman, is it not a flagrant wrong
to have a law that says, if a man and woman possess not a dollar when
they link their fates, and if by untiring energy and economy they
accumulate a competence; then if the husband die, the wife shall only
have the use of one-third of the property her own efforts have
helped to accumulate, but if the wife die possessed of an estate that
came to her by personal effort or inheritance the husband shall have the
use of all of her estate of which he never earned one dollar?
There are three classes of women to be considered in this
question of "Married Women's Property Rights."
The first are the daughters or heirs of rich relatives, who as a
general thing know the inequalities of the law, and protect their
legatees who are married women, by making the property willed to them a
separate estate, free from the use, or control of any husband they have
or may have. The second
class are the poor women (an we have thousands of them both white and
black here in Kentucky) who in conjunction with their husbands, and
often without their aid, engage in some occupation to keep the wolf from
the door, and the fire on the hearth, for which they receive wages.
The law has been amended of late years, so that employers are
allowed, though not compelled, to pay such wages directly to such
married women. Would
not our lawmakers blush to have such a statute in our code as existed
before this amendment, viz: That
the wages a woman earned for service rendered, belonged to her husband,
which placed her in no better condition on this point, than the slave of
three decades ago? But the
third and by far the largest class, are the legatees of persons who know
little of the laws, and whose estates consist of a few acres of land, an
humble home, or a few head of stock.
The holder of such an estate dies, and the married daughters come
in for their share of the "scanty hoard."
The legacy or bequest passes not to the daughter, but to her
husband, and can be used at his discretion, and the woman is only a
pensioner, not able to obtain a dollar of her inheritance for her own
necessities or those of her children, unless he choose to give it to
her. Many a woman has seen
a horse, a cow, a few sheep which was all her father was able to leave
her, driven off by a dissipated husband, and sold to put money in his
pocket, to purchase the very article that made him a bad husband, and
yet the law as it is in Kentucky to-day, protects that man and suffers
the woman to be so greatly wronged.
Then in the use of all the realty, of which a wife dies
possessed going by law to the husband for life, a married woman has not
the privilege of providing for her own children, as the father may marry
again; as in numberless cases, bring a second wife to live on the real
estate of the first wife, raise a family by the second wife, and turn
his first wife's children adrift, because the law prevented the mother
who owned the property, from making any provision for her own offspring.
As the law stands now, giving a husband use and control of a
wife's property, when testators see fit to protect married women by
making their inheritance a separate estate, husbands consider that a
reflection on their financial ability, or their honesty, and unkind
feelings arise in the heart of the husband against the wife's family.
Though such feelings may never be evinced, they are there as sure
as the spark of immortality. But in most cases these feeling do not remain smothered, but
break out and engender bickerings and dissensions. All this cause of marital contention and unhappiness, could
be obliterated from our sociology, if an equal property rights law were
enacted. Our legislature is
for the purpose of passing laws, for the welfare and happiness of the
whole people, and if laws are on our statute books, which through their
injustice lengthen our legal dockets, and Mary Jones vs. John Jones, and
a train of like cases are in our divorce courts, brought there through
unjust property laws, is it not the duty of our legislators to
substitute laws that will remove this canker that is preying on many
homes of the Commonwealth? To
touch this question of Married Women's Property Rights is to thrust a
two edged sword into a slumbering wrong, that has a place in thousands
of Kentucky homes. While
the position of Kentucky married women in regard to their property is so
humiliating and unjust, it is quite comfortable in comparison with that
of a widow. The following
is a fair illustration of the injustice that thousands of widows are
suffering. A young man and woman marry, and start in the world with no
capital save industry and energy and a determination to make a living.
They rent a farm, and with hearty good will the man plows and
sows, reaps and mows, digs and delves.
The woman is housekeeper, cook, washerwoman, scrubber-in-chief,
seamstress, milkmaid, &c. Kind providence blesses their endeavors, and field and
barn-yard yield such a return, that the idea is suggested to these young
people that they can do more than make a comfortable living, and
they talk the matter over and wonder if by thrift and economy they
cannot buy the farm. They decide to do so and with increased
energy, both man and woman perform the duties of a dozen callings, and
success continues to smile upon them.
After awhile the children come along, and to the woman's duties
are added those of mother, nurse, and doctress.
After years of toil and self-denial a joyful day comes to that
household. The last payment
has been made on the farm. The
marks of toil and age are by this time plainly seen on both man and
woman. The children are
growing to manhood and womanhood, and going into the world to make homes
for themselves. One after
another they leave the homestead, and the man and woman sit by their
fireside alone, each dependent on the other.
Time and hardship have made their lives as it were one.
The man dies without a will.
The law comes in and says to the widow, “this home that you
have labored so hard to help procure, must now be sold, as the children
must have their share of their father's estate.”
The whole property does not amount to more than a comfortable
living for the mother, but it is sold over her head, and her dower which
in the majority of cases does not amount to one thousand dollars
allotted to the widow. Thus in old age she is rendered homeless, and must be
buffeted about among her children.
John's house is too small to take mother, William's wife is so
disagreeable she can't go there, Susan has too many children and Mary's
husband objects to having his wife's mother live with them.
So the poor old woman is virtually a pauper after all her
struggles. The Statutes say
that a widow can remain in the homestead forty days after the death of
her husband without paying rent. A
civilized law indeed which decrees, that a woman can remain undisturbed
in the home, as long as she has a husband to protect her, but as soon as
that protector is cold in his grave, she must either pay rent, or vacate
the home that in a majority of cases she has helped to build.
Then at the proper time a sale of the home and all the hard
earned comforts must take place. If,
however the wife die, the husband is left in undisturbed possession.
There is living in
Covington to-day a woman who has three times bought and paid for a
bureau, originally given to her by her father; at his death, everything
in the house had to be sold that the law might divide it among his
heirs. The bureau was
bought by the woman and charged to her portion of the estate.
After her marriage her husband died without a will, when the same
process was repeated, and marrying again she had for the third time the
experience of bidding in the same old bureau. The
absurdity of such a proceeding would almost provoke a smile, did not the
helpless condition of a widow in the hands of Kentucky law rise before
us.
This thing of dividing small estates
among children, on the death of the father and rendering the mother
homeless is a law that must have come to us from the Goths and Vandals.
Is it not time to abolish a law that so greatly wrongs the weak
and defenceless? Surely old
age is a time when a home is most needed, but Kentucky law says the wife
of a man that leaves only a small estate must not have one.
Do wives owe husbands a greater debt than husbands owe wives,
that it is measured by the amount of estate they must leave them, and
the honor so great to woman, that the whole of her estate must go to the
husband to compensate him for the honor of bestowing his name upon her?
In many of the States and Territories
of the Union "Curtesy and Dower" have been abolished and in
others a system of community property prevails. Such legislation is being enacted every year, and married
women are being placed in independent possession and control of all
their property obtained before or after marriage, just as a husband is
here in Kentucky. Are
Kentucky wives less to be trusted with what is their own than the women
of other States? Are they such an irresponsible class that a pocket book is a
superfluous article? There
is no denying the fact, that it is a pretty generally accepted belief
that married women have no use for money, as their husbands pay the
bills.
A volume might be filled, citing
instances of women who manipulate the money given them for household
expenses, to conceal from their husbands, that they keep a little for
their private use; of wives who resort to abject flattery, and nauseous
submission, as means of getting what amounts to a servant's wages; of
rich men's wives dressed in silk and fine jewels, who know no more the
luxury of having a little money of their own, than the veriest beggar in
the street. This testimony
comes from thousands of merchants and others, who have had dealings with
pauper wives of well to do husbands.
How much more bitter the injustice when the stipend allowed comes
from the income of the wife's property?
Now in the name of common justice let our next General Assembly
make a Married Woman's Property Rights Law, giving to wives control of
their own property as husbands have. The civilization of a people is measured by the laws that
govern its women. Kentucky
is the only State in the Union that does not allow a married woman to
make a will, so if the world judges by that law it does not place us
very high on the scale.
In numbers of States, and all of the
Territories not a vestige of such barbarous legislation remains,
Virginia has passed a Married Woman's Property Rights Law.
Tennessee is waking to the importance of such a measure.
Mississippi has long ago placed married women on perfect equality
as regards property rights, and every State in the South has more just
laws on this subject than Kentucky.
The torch of Justice gleamed in the long ago as dimly as a star
in the depths of space, but the light has been growing steadily, till
now it is illuminating the nations, and is held as an oriflamme in
legislative bodies, and the "Golden Rule" is the handwriting
on the wall to guide their deliberations.
All this while men have been growing more noble, magnanimous and
just, and exhibit more justice in their lives than the law requires them
to do. Many generous men
knowing how odious is the position the law places married women in, make
their wives as independent financially as they are themselves.
But justice voluntarily rendered does not do away with unjust
laws. They still remain for
any to enforce if they wish do.
If a calcium light could be thrown on
the domestic life of Kentucky homes, it would reveal the truest
happiness in those where just and magnanimous men, have made the
statutes in regard to the property rights of wives a dead letter, and
established an equal financial copartnership, as a law unto their own
homes. The just and the
brave have ever been the guardians of the week and defenceless.
Let memory go gleaning over the fields of the past, and where
will it find an instance, where women have abused a larger liberty
accorded them?
From the day when it was proclaimed
they had no soul, and they were sold as goods and chattels, to this hour
when the noblest and wisest of earth are sounding the key-note first
struck by the Divine Emancipator for the womanhood of the world, they
have never betrayed a trust. Wrongs
once abolished sleep in a common sepulchre and no resurrection awaits
them. Surely the day has come when no legislative body in Kentucky
can afford to refuse justice to women. With an abiding faith in the "nobler sentiments of humanity, their sense of justice and their confidence in the expediency of right, we place our trust in God; who will in His own time establish the righteous cause." But if the time has not arrived, for the latent forces of justice and magnanimity to be awakened in the law making power of the state, and even one man establish a law in his own home, a law of financial independence for his wife; or one wife ask and receive the boon of independence, this appeal will not have been written in vain.
|
