"It is singular to see a marriage _annulled_ on account of the
misspelling or suppressing of a name, which would be held _valid_
against the lasting misery of the parties."
By cruelty is meant "reasonable apprehension of bodily hurt." Mere
austerity of temper, petulance of manners, rudeness of language, a want
of civil attention, even _occasional_ sallies of passion, do not amount
to that cruelty which the law can relieve. The wife must disarm her
husband by the _weapons of kindness_!
I have shown you upon what estimate the general common law of the United
States is based, as regards both property and divorce. It is needless to
say that this estimate is very little to be preferred to that of older
countries; but, when the reformers of our cause are tauntingly asked
what good they have done, they may reply proudly, though they should
point to the changes of legislation during the last ten years alone.
Since 1850, the laws have been changed in at least nineteen States. The
credit of this change should certainly rest with the men and women of
this reform; for, in every State, its sympathizing friends helped to
frame the new laws.
Whether justly or not, Rhode Island claims the honor of leading the way
in such changes. In 1844, the Hon. Wilkins Updike introduced a bill into
her legislature, securing to married women their property under certain
regulations. The step was in the right direction. In 1847, Vermont
passed similar enactments. In 1848-9, Connecticut, New York, and Texas
followed; in 1850, Alabama; in 1853, New Hampshire. In 1855,
Massachusetts passed an act of a still more comprehensive kind. It was
essentially the same as that introduced into her Senate, in 1852, by the
Hon. S.E. Sewall. It was not wholly satisfactory to those who prepared
it, but was the best it was thought possible to pass.[42] In 1856 and
1857, the Legislatures of Kentucky, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Rhode
Island, and Maine, altered their property-laws,--Rhode Island advancing
somewhat on her first step.[43] Wisconsin and Iowa have followed; and it
is not likely that any new States, unless they should be slave States,
will repeat the old barbarisms.
I have given Rhode Island the precedence she claims; but there are
certain statutes of the State of Illinois, as early in date as January,
1829, which deserve to be alluded to, on account of their unusual
liberality.
If married, and over the age of eighteen years, a woman in Illinois
may, _in spite_ of her husband, devise her real estate, and bequeath her
personal estate, to any one for ever.
The wife may administer on her deceased husband's estate, in preference
to all others, if she apply within sixty days. On her husband's death,
she inherits one-half of his real estate in fee-simple, absolute; and
the whole of his personal estate, with her rights of dower in addition.
The wife has not _legally_ the first title to the guardianship of her
child on the demise of her husband; but she has it by a kind of
_comity_, the consent of public opinion and the courts.
In reference to the wife's inheriting from the husband, my
correspondent, the Hon. William H. Herndon, says,--
"You will perceive a difference in the two sections relating to the
wife and husband as inheriting from one another, favorable to the
wife apparently. In the twenty-second section you will find, that,
in case of the wife's death without children, the husband inherits
one-half of her real estate in fee-simple, absolute; but nothing is
said about her personal. This is because the common law has already
given him her personal estate on her marriage."
So we see that the State of Illinois did not quite divest itself of the
barbarisms of the common law.