652 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



they attain personal rights. No State Legislature has said " Go to, 

 let us make the married woman the legal equal of her husband," but 

 legislation has pointed in that direction more and more during these 

 last years, so pregnant of changes in her position. If the married 

 woman is to be the legal equal of her husband, she will find she must 

 accept the penalties as well as gains of independence. The laws 

 already indicate this. For instance, as soon as women were allowed 

 to hold as separate property what they owned before marriage, they 

 were made solely liable for their own antenuptial debts. As soon as 

 women were allowed to hold as separate property what they gained in 

 any way after marriage, they were made liable for their own sej^arate 

 debts incurred after marriage. And as soon as they were allowed to 

 carry on separate trades and business, they were made partially or 

 equally liable with the husband for the support of the family. Not that 

 legislation in these two directions has been simultaneous or universally 

 united; but these two tendencies are to be noted. And the one is the 

 legitimate corollary of the other. As fast as the wife is removed from 

 wardship to her husband, she should be required to assume her personal 

 obligations and release him from them. The practical question now 

 before us is. How far are these twin tendencies to proceed ? Judging 

 from facts of existing law, and analogies of other social movements, 

 we may arrive at the conclusion that, just as in political control the 

 overmastering impulse of growth is in the direction of the greatest 

 possible freedo^n of the individual, consistent with social cohesion, so 

 in domestic control the irresistible movement is in the direction of the 

 most perfect legal equality of the married partners, consiste?it with 

 family unity. 



These exact limits we can not yet master in superficial detail, either 

 in political government or family life. But past experience shows us 

 that the measure of personal independence which woman can gain in- 

 side the family structure will alone be hers permanently. All attempts 

 to abrogate the legal marriage tie, or to make her sole owner of the 

 children, in order to secure her independent sovereignty, have been 

 abortive movements, leading to a reversion to less developed forms of 

 sexual union, or even to that promiscuity which (like political anarchy 

 of revolt) demands the despotic rule of the strongest to lay again the 

 foundations of progress. The States of our Union which have car- 

 ried their legislative changes farthest in the direction of legal inde- 

 pendence of married women have not yet settled fully the questions 

 involved. For instance, in States accepting the principle of equal 

 ownership of personal estate and equal responsibility for personal 

 debts, the question as to which parent should be solely or chiefly respon- 

 sible for the support of the family is only half met. In Connecticut 

 (by its recent sweeping revision, which places it among the most ad- 

 vanced in respect to our topic) the father is made responsible, alone, 

 for family expenses. But, if a woman owns personal property, should 



