LAW OF THE FARM. 311 



himself within the United States, unless by acts of injustice, or such as are 

 contrary to his marital duties, the husband renders her happiness insecure. 



While the common law regarded the husband and wife as one person, and 

 that person principally husband, she yet retained sufficient personality to be 

 hanged and otherwise punished for her own criminal acts, unless in cases 

 where the crime is not bad in itself {malum in se), or committed in the pres- 

 ence or by the command of her husband. Where the wife commits a crime 

 in the presence of her husband, she is presumed to have done it at his com- 

 mand, and is therefore not personally liable. This presumption is not always 

 reliable, as Avhere, in Michigan, a wife, participating with her husband in a 

 robbery, choked a man while her husband picked his pockets, she was held 

 to be equally liable with him for the robbery. • 



It was once considered that the husband might correct or whip his wife in 

 order to bring her into subjection ; this is now considered unlawful. The 

 common law proceeded upon the hypothesis that a man would never be cruel 

 to his wife. Indeed, man is the only creature in the wide world ever known 

 to abuse the female. Dogs never do such things. Your male dog, however 

 obedient to you in other respects, will die at your hands before he will bite or 

 abuse the female dog at your command. He will yield to her his favorite bone 

 rather than injure her, although she may be a stranger to whom he has never 

 had an introduction. 



In looking over a bill in chancery, the other day, filed by a woman against 

 her husband for a divorce, on the ground of extreme cruelty, wherein she 

 charged that her husband knocked her down and than tried to kick her in the 

 face, I was forcibly reminded of what an old and exerienced hunter once said 

 when asked whicli was the most cruel and ferocious animal he had ever 

 encountered. He said he had hunted grizzly bears in the Rocky Mountains, 

 and lions in Central Africa, had been pursued by the black wolves of Russia, 

 and had met the royal tiger in the jungles of Bengal, but the most ferocious, 

 savage, cruel, bloodthirsty, and unrelenting animal he had ever encountered 

 was civilized man. Other animals, he said, never molested him if he let them 

 alone, unless when driven frantic by hunger. But civilized man would slay 

 his own children, and cut the throats of innocent girls, from pure cussednes?. 

 Divorce on the ground of cruelty was unknown to the common law. 



At the common law, when a women married, not only her person but all 

 her personal property passed to the control of her husband. This right 

 became absolute instantly upon marriage. As to her things in action, or 

 property requiring some action to realize its full possession or enjoyment, such 

 as notes and mortgages, the husband's right was qualified; such things did 

 not vest in him until her consent reduced them to possession. His right was 

 also subject to an important qualification known as the wife's "equity of set- 

 tlement." This is thus defined: "If the husband wants the aid of a court 

 of equity to enable him to get possession of his wife's property, or if her 

 fortune be within reach of a court of equity, he must do what is equitable by 

 making a reasonable provision out of it for the maintainance of her and her 

 children." This equity arises only when the husband has to resort to the aid 

 of the court to get possession of her property. 



About forty years ago a revolution began as to the property rights of mar- 

 ried women. Modifying laws were passed in Michigan, and gradually the 

 march of legislative amelioration has extended to nearly every State in the 

 union. It is not necessary to review these various changes in detail, especially 

 as the laws of the states differ quite essentially. In ]855 the revolution in 



