"Our Illinois Legislature has this winter (1860-61) enacted a law,
allowing women (married women) all their property,--real, personal,
mixed,--free from all debt, contract, obligation, and control of
their husbands. This law puts man and woman in the same position,
as far as property-rights and their remedies are concerned. This is
right,--just as it should be. For my life, I cannot see why there
should be any distinction between men and women, when we speak of
rights under government. A woman's rights are identical with a
man's. Where he is limited, she should be; where she is limited, he
should be."
In Rhode Island, the civil existence of the husband and wife is but one;
and, though the letter of the law considers her property acquired by
trade or inheritance as technically her own, still it is no longer under
her single control. If, as a wife, she sells merchandise, the buyer
becomes a debtor to her _husband and herself_. If she makes a purchase,
her note is good for nothing, unless her husband's signature is affixed
to it. He can dispose of the whole of her personal estate, unless the
buyer has been previously notified by _her_, in writing, that the
property is exclusively her own. Her real estate the husband cannot
sell: but _even of this_ she cannot dispose by will; so, perhaps, it
might as well be sold. The absurdity becomes ludicrous, when we remember
that the law makes her competent to devise any number of millions, so
long as it is invested in bank-stock or merchandise.