THE AMERICAN-SCANDINAVIAN REVIEW 
39 
under dispute.” While it is true that woman in the past had no rights 
within marriage, it is equally true that she had no responsibility— 
it was all put on the shoulders of the man. The new code not only 
lifts the woman to the same level as the man as regards her rights, 
but also delegates new duties and responsibilities to her. 
Many and long have been the deliberations regarding the relative 
position of man and wife toward their property. Where the wife is 
not a wage earner and has no private property she must naturally be 
dependent upon the husband, but as a rule his support amounts to 
little beyond food and clothing for herself and her children. There 
has been some discussion of a regular wage for the wife; but all such 
proposals have been put aside as impractical. In fact the problem 
is yet unsolved beyond the statement in paragraph 2 that “they shall 
agree on how to apply and apportion the funds, and if they can not 
come to an agreement, the chief magistrate must step in and decide 
how much shall be paid to the injured party.” It is rather dubious, 
however, whether this will work well in practice, since a marriage 
in which the authorities have to take a hand in arranging money 
matters between husband and wife is already in a state of dissolution. 
•J 
In the case of a divorce the wife receives all that she has brought 
into the household, and the husband can not dispose of any part of 
the joint property without the consent of the wife. This is progress 
indeed, for how often has it not happened in the past that the husband 
would sell the property, even that which had been contributed by 
the wife, without in the least consulting her. 
No man under twenty-one and no woman under eighteen can be 
married without the consent of the king or whoever he authorizes to 
act for him. Any one who has been legally declared incapable of 
managing his own affairs can not be married without the consent of 
a guardian. 
A problem on which there has been disagreement within the 
Commission is that of the stand to be taken toward venereal diseases 
in connection with marriage. Norway has gone farthest (and has 
probably chosen the right course) in absolutely prohibiting marriage 
to those afflicted with communicable syphilis. Sw r eden has established 
prohibition with dispensations. The Danish proposal takes a middle 
ground in trying by force or persuasion to elicit truthfulness: where 
either party is afflicted with a communicable venereal disease, a physi¬ 
cian is to instruct both parties. It is hardly likely that this provision 
will improve existing conditions very much, and Professor Bentzon’s 
comments are not very optimistic. He says: “Legislation of this kind 
is something of an experiment. It is doubtful whether people will pay 
much attention to it, and it may result in falsified testimonials. At 
the same time a demand for truthfulness can never do harm (while 
a prohibition, especially one without exemptions, may be too harsh a 
