The following editorial from the Springfield Republican, gives a good digest of the new law passed upon Governor Hubbard's recommendation:
Connecticut has taken a great leap forward in the reform of the property relations of married persons. The law had been long neglected in that State, the obvious right of a married woman to property acquired before marriage, which is now secured in most States by constitutional provision, having been there denied. In Massachusetts, the modification of the former inequalities has gone on by piecemeal, till it is said that in some respects the woman is now the more favored party.
The new Connecticut statute also puts the burden of the family maintenance on the man, as under most circumstances the real bread-winner. It simply lays down the principle of absolute equality in the rights and privileges of the husband and wife, with the above exception. In all marriages hereafter contracted, neither husband nor wife shall acquire any right to or interest in any property of the other, whether held before the marriage or acquired after the marriage, except as provided in this law. The separate earnings of the wife shall be her sole property. She shall have the same right to make contracts with third persons as if she were not married, and to convey her real and personal estate. Her property is liable for her debts and not for his; his is not liable for her debts, except those contracted for the support of the family. Purchases made by either party shall be presumed to be on the private account of the party, but both shall be liable where any article purchased by either shall have in fact gone to the support of the family, or for the joint benefit of both, or for the reasonable apparel of the wife, or for her reasonable support while abandoned by her husband. It shall, however, be the duty of the husband to support his family, and his property, when found, shall be first applied to satisfy any such joint liability. The wife shall be entitled to indemnity for any money of her own used to pay such claims. We have used almost the precise language of the first and second sections of the act.
On the death of either, the survivor shall be entitled to the use for life of one-third the estate of the deceased, which right cannot be defeated by will. If the deceased leaves no children or representatives of children, the survivor is entitled to one-half instead of one-third. When either party gives a legacy to the other, the latter may choose between its rights under the will, and those under the statute. Abandonment without cause may defeat this provision, and a marriage contract may supersede it ent-
cut—the establishment in practice of the principle of equal, mutual, legal rights, and equal, mutual, legal responsibilities, for which I have been preaching and praying these twenty years. We owe the success this year, first to the right of the matter; second, to the agitation of the whole question which has disseminated the perception of that right; third, to you and your husband in particular; and fourth, to the fact that you had in Connecticut this year a governor who was recognized as the leading lawyer of the State, a genuine natural conservative who yet said the measure was right and ought to go. It is this last element that has given Connecticut its chief leadership. It is a bigger thing than it seems at first to have an eminent conservative lawyer on the side of such legislative reform. I hate very much to take your husband's side against you, and yet now that I am over fifty years old, I find I more and more sympathize with his patience and philosophy with the slow-going march of reform. But with such things going forward in national politics, and such a sign in the heavens as this in Connecticut, we ought all to be very happy—and I believe I am, in spite of debts, hard work, fatigue and more or less chronic invalidism. At any rate I salute you both with honor and with affection."
"This letter I enclosed to Governor Hubbard and received the following reply:
"My Good Friend:—It was a 'Good Friday' indeed that brought your friendly missive. And what a dainty and gracious epistle Sam. Bowles does know how to write! He is a good fellow, upon my word, full of generous instincts and ideas. He ought to be at the head of the London Times and master of all the wealth it brings. Add to this, that the Good Physician should heal him of his 'chronic invalidism' and then—well what's the use of dreaming? Thank yourself, and such as you for what there is of progress in respect of woman's rights amongst us. I do believe our bill is a 'great leap forward' as Bowles says in his editorial. 'Alas!' says my friend ———, 'it has destroyed the divine conception of the unity of husband and wife.' As divine, upon my soul, as the unity of the lamb and the devouring wolf. *** But enough of this. I salute you my good friend, with a thousand salutations of respect and admiration. I do not agree with you in all things, but I cannot tell you how much I glorify you for your courage and devotion to womanhood. I am a pretty poor stick for anything like good work in the world, but I am not without respect for it in others. And so I present myself to yourself and to your good and noble husband whom I take to be one of the best, with every assurance of affection and esteem. Thanking you for your kind letter, I remain, dear madam,
