Library Collections: Document: Full Text

If a man had suffered a tithe of the wrongs which I have suffered, the laws stand ready to give him redress, and thus shield him from a repetition of them. But not so with me. I must suffer not only this tithe, with no chance of redress, but ten times this amount, and no redress then.

I even now stand exposed to a life-long imprisonment in States where committals on certificates are legal, so long as my husband lives, while I not only have never committed any crime, hut on the contrary, have ever lived a life of self-sacrificing benevolence, ever toiling for the best interests of humanity.

Think again! After this life of faithful service for others, I am thrown adrift, at fifty years of age, upon the cold world, with no place on earth I can call home, and not a penny to supply my wants with, except what my own exertion secures to me. Why is this?

Because he who should have been my protector, has been my robber, and has stolen all my life-long earnings.

And yet the law does not call this stealing, because the husband is legally authorized to steal from the wife without leave or license from her!

Now, I say it is a poor rule that don't work both ways. Why can't the wife steal all the husband has? I am sure she can't support herself as well as he can, and the right of justice seems to be on our side, in our view. But this is not what we want; we don't wish to rob our husbands, we only want they should be stopped from robbing us.

We just ask for the reasonable right to use our own property as if it were our own, that is, just as we please, just according to the dictates of our own judgment. And when we insist upon this right, we don't want our husbands to have power to imprison us for so doing, as my husband did me. It was simply that I insisted upon my right to my property, when this fatal issue resulted therefrom as seen in the foregoing narrative.

Now, I ask any developed man, who holds property which is rightfully his own, and no one's else, how he would like to exchange places with me, and be treated just as I have been treated? Now, I say it is only fair that the law makers should be subject to their own laws. That is, they should not make laws for others, that they would not be willing to submit to themselves in exchange of circumstances. Just put the case to yourselves, and ask how would you like to be imprisoned without any sort of trial, or any chance for self-defense, and then be robbed of all your life earnings, by a law which women made for your good (!) as your God-appointed protectors?

Oh, my Government -- the men of these United States -- do bear with me long enough to just make our case your own for one moment, and then let me kindly ask you this question:

Won't you please stop this robbery of our inalienable right to our own property, by some law, dictated by some of your noble, manly hearts? Do let us have a right to our own home -- a right to our own earnings -- a right to our own patrimony. A right, I mean, as partners in the family firm.

We do not ask for a separate interest. We want an identification of interests, and then be allowed a legal right to this common fund as the junior partners of this company interest. We most cheerfully allow you the rights of a senior partner; but we do not want you to be senior, junior, and all, leaving us no rights at all, in a common interest.

Again, we true, natural women, want our own children too -- we can't live without them. We had rather die than have them torn from us as your laws allow them to be. Only consider for one moment, what your laws are, in relation to our own flesh and blood. The husband has all the children of the married woman secured to himself, to do with them just as he pleases, regardless of her protests, or wishes, or entreaties to the contrary; while the children of the single women are all given to her as her right by nature!

Here the maternal nature of the single woman is respected and protected, as it should be; while the nature of the married woman is ignored and set at naught, and the holiest instinct of woman is trampled in the dust of an utter despotism.

In other words, the legitimate offspring of the wife are not protected to her, but given to the husband, while the illegitimate offspring of the unmarried women are protected to her. So that the only way to be sure of having our maternity respected, and our offspring legally protected to us, is to have our children in the single instead of the married state!

With shame I ask the question, does not our Government here offer a premium on infidelity?

And yet this is a Christian Government!

Why can't the inalienable rights of the lawful wife be as much respected as those of the open prostitute? I ask, why?

Is it because a woman has no individuality, after she is joined to a man? Are her conscience, and her reason, and her thoughts, all lost in him?

So my case demonstrates the law to be, when practically tested.

And does not this legalized despotism put our souls in jeopardy, as well as our bodies, and our children?