Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Liberal Republican. (Dallas, Or.) 1872-1??? | View Entire Issue (April 19, 1873)
in tBBt . ' AM l J J tflT 0 ir '.'Mil ii i(n NO. 5; - VOL. 4. DALLAS, . OREGON, SATURDAY. APRIL 19. 1873. J) y J ' JJBM j'' JiUi 1 -LL f i i r If If I i he SHfera! BaubH fan OI'jVICIAI, COUNTY. PAPER FOR POLK It Issaei Ever? Saturday Morning, at DalUs, Folk County, Oregon. P. C. SUIXIVAN PROPRIETOR, SUBSCRIPTION BATES. SINGLE COPIES One Year, $2 00. Six Months, $1 25 .Three Months, $100 For Clubs of ten or more $1 75 per annum. Subscription mutt be paid etrictly in advance ADVERTISING BATES. One square (12 lines or less), first insert'n,f 2 50 Each subsequent insertion 1 00 A liberal deduction will be made to quar terly and yearly adrertisers. Professional cards will bo inserted at $12 00 per annum. Transient advertisements must be paid for in advance to insure publication. All other advertising bills must be paid quarterly. Legal tenders taken at their current value. Blanks and Job Work of every description urnisbed at low rates on short notice. TIIE ILLUSTRATED PHRENOLOGICAL JOURNAL, is in every respect a Firt- Class Magazine. Its articles are of the highest interest to all. It teaches what we are and how to make the most of our?elves. The informa tion it contains on the Laws of Life and Health is well worth the price of the Magaiineto every Family. It is published at $3 00 a year. By special arrangement we are enabled to offce the Phbknological Jocns.it. as a Premium ior a new mbscribers to the Orkgox Reim bmcan, r will furnish the Phrenological Joi bxal and Oregox Republican together for $4 00 "We commend the Joiusal to all who want a good magazine PROFESSIONAL CARDS, ctC R P Boise I L Willis BOISE & W I L LI S, Attorneys at Law 8ALUH, OREGON.' Will practice in all the courts in the State F'15 73 ly JOI1A J. DALY, Att'y & Conscllcr-at-Laiv. DALLAS, OREGON. Will practice in the Courts of Record and In- etior Courts. Collections attended to promptly OFFICE In the Court House. 41-tf P. C. SULLIVAIV, Attorney & Connsellor-At-Law, DaUa, Oregon, Will practice in all the Courts f the State. 1 J. K IITES, M. D. J j, c, CKVBBS, A.M., .D DRS. sites &, outruns. jPhysicians and Slovens, OFFER TIIIER PROFESSIONAL 6ER vices to the citizens of Dallas and vicin OFFICE In rear of Nichols k Hyde's Drag Store. Fcb22 73tf I ' ' ." ' " " " ...- .?i:'Ji"n.iiip-:..-- i V. II. RV B E C.IV. D E NT I ST . Office one door North of the Post Office AIXAS OGN, Particular atention given to the regulation AU workwtrraatod Janll'73tf iV.fi'ir ADVERTISEMENTS. REAL ESTATE. oeo. n. joves ' V Koal Estate Broker " J. M. PATTKIIS91 Notary Public JOIYES & PATTERSON, REAL ESTATE AGENTS. Negotiate Loans, Make Collections, AGENTS FOR UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO- of San Fraucisco; and MUTUAL I1FE INSURANCE CO., of New York. OPERA HOUSE BLOCK SALI2M OIILGON. OUR RULES : We baj or sell only on commission charging n per ent:ie f.r tho amount wbirh the prop erty is sold or traded, for our f rvieKjt, due when tho contract of ta!c or tra le j. made We will intrr.ilnrf mirrliiir f,i th .iu.i...r4 ,,f the property, and leave them free to m ike the best bargan they can, without auy iutvrftrrcuce on our jiart We pay all advertising expense, depvndin; on our comiai-ssion, whou a aalo or trade L made We ghow all property, where within reach, 'or xie letters of iutrluctin to reliable parties living m ar who will ahowit All letters of inquiry promptly an 1 fully a:i pwcred IT We have many app'tc.itions from j.iod, prompt pay iug men, who will pay 12 perocnf for nimn-y. ( audgive Grrtciaas pergonal r real estate ecuri- i ty.aod pay all the expenses attending making ut ! the paper. Ac. l'arties having money to loan j will do weii to apply to u .re pbtcilitf it ei.j where We eburxo the leinkr tin thin,; lor ar i services ; the borrower, pay u K,,tir Sati.fac- j tion giveu regarding the securities. Attention is clld to description of property for sale i n tho Wkkklv Status ma. Feb yj.i ly MM I V2I.S STAR BAKERY. FAMILY CIUCEHIi:s, Crnclcor Manulhoury, Commercial Street, Sal cm Oregon. Feb 1 5T3 ly OR. HUDSON L M. PHYSICIAN & SURGEON. OFFICE Over Souther's Store, Cor Commercial A State Stg., Salem, Ogn with Dr. Richardson. Not 9, tf C. S. SI I, V K It, No. 130, First Street, POUT1ANI), - - - - OREGON Wholesale and Retail Dealer in DRY GOODS, CLOTHING, LADIES' DIIKSS GOODS, BOOTH A NO HIIOK8, II ATS Si, CAPS GROCERIES 6 PROVISIONS, Highest Cash Price paid for all kinds of Country Produce. T 'II I I ' I -i mi' I - DALLA8 LIVERY, FEED & SALE STABLE Cor Mali and Court Streets, Thos G, i Richmond, Proprietor. HAVING PURCHASED THE ABOVE Stand of Mr. A. II. Whitley, we have re fitted and re-8tocked it in such a manner as will satisfactorily meet every want ef the com munity. Baggies, single or double, Hacks, Con cord Wagons, etc., etc., Faraiihed at all hours, day or night, on abort notice. Superior Saddle Horses, let by the Mt y r ww rem TEnras, reasonable. 4 T. 0. RICHMOND CONJUGAL RIGHTS- There seemed a danger under recent decisions that there would be, in course of time, absolutely no limit to the " rights " of a wife and, as sotnb would say consequently, no limits to the 4 responsibilities " of the husband. By a recent opinion of tho Supreme Court in this State, however, it appears that while the newly-declared rights of the wife, to trade and to forth, on exactly equal tciuis with the husband, are admitted, the Court decides that justice is also due to the husband, in protecting him from responsibility from what is comprehensively known in law as the "torts" of the wife. The subject is an important one in this period of transition,when the gcuer-ally-reeeived notions as to marriage rights are beiug overturned on every side. The various decisions in the Cook County Courts, and tho celebra- bratcd decision of Judire Dlodgett, in ! wl,;ch he dtel ired that he must accept the new doctrine that a wife is entitled to trade as partner, cither with her husband or any one el?c, have been given by the Tribune, and we complete the history of this new mcial revolu tion by drawing attention to its latest phase. In the cae under notice, Janet Kobson sued one John Martin for . slanderous words ucd respecting her . t , , - i , ( t. . b t MarMn.Juhn 8 Wile. In pro- nouncing an opinion, on t!ic ca-c coming up on appeal to the Supreme Court, Jude Thornto'n,for the (Jotirt.delivcred an elaborate opinion, holding thut the husband wa." not liable. After considering tho general rjnci tion of the removal of the disabilities of a wile, Honor proceeded: a MAr.iT.ir.rry .vhich has for its consideration rights conftrred, should no longer exist vhen the consideration hns failed. If the relations of husband and wifo have been o changed as to deprive him of all rights to her property, and to the control of her person and her time, every principal of right would be viola ted, to hold him still responsible for her conduct. If she is cmancipatedf he should no longer bo enslaved. For the policy and wisdom of the legisla tion which has effected a chango bo radical, the Legislature alone is respon sible. The courts must guard against a construction which might prove mischievous and RESULT IN A PRACTICAL DIVORCE MENT of man and wife, if such construction can be avoided. In Cole v. Van Hipen supra, this Court said that the the Legislature never could have in tended, by the enactment of 18G1, to loosen the bonds ol matrimony, or to enable tho wife, at pleasure, to eflectu ato a divorce a mensa ct thoro ; or to confer the power to restrict tho bus. band to the us3 of a particular chair, or to forbid him to take a book from her library without her permission. We shall not insist that such unwicfliko conduct can even be justified since the law of 18G9. Tho inquiry is therefore pertinent What is left of the nuptial contract ? What duties and obligations still exist? As tho result of the marriage vow, and as a part of the contract, tho wife is still bound to lovo and cherish tho husband, and to obey him in all reason able demands not inconsistent with the exercise of her legal rights j to treat him with respect, and regard him, at least, as her equal ; and he is aliko bouud to protect and maintain her, unless sho should neglect wholly her martial duties, as imposed by the com mon law, or assume a position to prevent their pcrforraanco, and thus deprive him of her society, mar the beauty of married life, and disregard the household good. Theso : dutica and obligations upon husband ana wife wpre n6t the result of the arrangement of their property at common law, but of tho "j contract of marriage, and the relation thereby, created. By , the marriage. e . . SUE RECAIE ONE OP IHS FAMILY ' ; and ho was botfnd to provide her a hotro and necessaries there, but not elsewhere. He must furnish her with necessaries from a principle of duty and justice. This doctrine is approved by Kent in his Commentaries, 2 vol, 140. The argument urged to maintain the responsibility of tho husband for the torts of the wife, because he xuay still, be bound to provide necessaries, is not appropriate Upon the marriage at common law, his assent to her contracts for necessaries, was presumed upon proof of cc habitation. If she eloped, though not ith an adulterer, the husband was not chargeable even for necessities. Hut elopement did not I release htm from liability for her debts i dam r1a, or from her torts. A he rule at common- law, a.i to the liability for necessaries is, if a mm, without j u stifle able came, turn away h'n wife, he is bouud for her contracts f'r necessaries, suitable to her decree aniojUto. If they live together an 1 he will no. supply her, or the necessary means, she then cin pledge his credit for nec!saries strictly; but if ha provides for her ho i not bouud by her con tracts, unless their is evidence to prove his assent. lie h not Donn-l uv iter contriicts unless they re made by his authority or with his concurrence. except be tnake no provision for her. Tha plata reason for tha oblitioo was thi coh;tuttatton. or tha riirht to eufurcc it and the consequent rijjht to her obdieneo and service. Hvon though he livel jpirato fr-jm hitn, supported her children, and earned a salary, tha party owin her ha! ni right to py her after notice frjm her nusoanti not to ao so. lie could in Rnch case, sue for an 1 recover the salary. Now how chang-rl ! II r earning", except for services she may render to him and hi.s minor child en, are her exclusive property, whether living apart from or with him. No principle is better settled at common law than that THE IIirsnANP IS NOT LIABLE for Decenaries furnished to the wife, if she leaves him without any fault on his part. But he was responsible tor for her torts until a dissolution of tho marriage, even in case of separation. Where tho husband and wife lived apart, and she published a liocl of a third person, ho was held to bo answerable, notwithstanding tho separ ation. The foundation for tho liability in the two cases is different. In the one case it was based upon cohabitation, and tho enjoyment of the society and services of the wifo, os a necessary eonseouence. In the other case it vested, more particularly, if not excla sively, upon tho fact that the husband became tho absoluto owner of hor personal property, and had tho right to receive tho rents and profits of her real estate. It is also urged as a reason for the continued liability of the hus band for the torts of tho wife, that this obligation was4imposed upon him,at common law. WHETHER. SHE WAS TOOR OR WEALTHY, and therefore the statutes have pro duced no different rule. If she did not enrich him with property ; it she did not endow him with gold, she endowed him with a nobler gift, and a greater excellence. She enriched him with her society; advised and encour aged him, as one who had no separate interests, and freely gave to him, her time, industrv, and skill. As a means of paying her debts and damage for her torts,hor counsel and earnings might boas important as her accumulated property, tfhc distinction between tho liability of the iiusband for the con tracts of the wife before rarrriage, and for her torts during marriage, asl for slander uttered by her alone, ' is Uoo dim to be easily seen. He was made liable for her debts at the period of marriage, became the law gave to him all her personal estate in possession, and the pwer to recover her personal property in action. He was boaod to piy her indebtedness, because ho adopt ed hor and her circumstances together The law made him litblo to the debts to which he took her subject, because he acquired an absolute interest in ber peasonal property; had the receipts of the rents and profjts tf her real estate duriug coverture, and was en titled to whatever accrued to her by her industry or otherwise, during the same period. The reason for the liabil ity, accorling to some authorities, is that by the marriage the wife was deprived of the use and disposal of her property, and ould acquire none by her industry, as her person aud earnings belonged to the husband Tyler on infancy and Cov., sec. 210 Tho same author, after declaring the husband's liability for the debts and torts of the wife, says: "The reason as-igncd for such liabilities at common law, is that he was entitled to the rents aud profits of the wife's real estate, during coverture, and to the absolute dominion over her personal property in possession." The common law was never guilty of the absurdity of impos ing obligations so onerous, without conferring corresponding rights. Hence, besides he rights of property, tho legal pre eminence was exclusively vested in the husband. He was answerable for her behavior, and hence had the ttirSHT OR RESTRAINT OVER HER PER SON. Lord Kames, in his sketches, says: " The man b?ars rule over his wife's person and conduct; she bears rule over his inclinations; ho governs by law, she by persuasion." In the matter of Cochrane, 8 Dow!, P. C, CS2, the wife was, upon the hear ing of a writ of habeas corpus, restored to her husband, upon tho principle that she was under his '"guardianship, aud that tha law .entitled him " for the sake of truth to protect her from the danger of unrestrained intercourse with the world, by enforcing cohabita tion and a common resi ience. " So Ions: ai tho husband was entitled fo the property of the wife and to her industry, so long as he had power to direct and control her, and thus prevent her from tho Comraision of torts, there was some reason for his liability. The reason has ceased. THE ANCIENT LANDMARKS ARE GONE. The maxims, and authority, and ad judications of the past have faded away. Tho foundations hitherto deem ed so essential for the preservation .of the nnptial contract, and the mainte nance of the marriage relation, are crum bling away. The unity cf husband and wife has becu severed. They are. now distinct persons, and may havo separate legal estates, contracts, debts and injuries. To this conclusion havo all the decisions of the court tended, j So far as the separate personal proper ty of the 'wife is concerned, she is now he same as ft jemme .sola. She? need not join her husband in' law in ' a suit to recover it, or for trespass to it, as her rights only are affcected, and she must sue alone for any invasion of them. She may even proseoute. A SUIT AOAIN3T IIER HUSBAND , for any unlawful Interference with her property, contrary to her wished. iThe right of action for personal injury to the wife is property. She may sue alone for the recovery of damages for such injuries, and the husband cannot, without her consent, reteas! them; In the same caic it is'said hit she cau maintain in her 'own' naineah action for slander' of ner "charactcV. If she alone is entitled to reccive&nH appropriate to her own use'damaCgeli recovered for slander to "herself, si should answer 'for her "slanders' Of others: .Until the'' law of iS&J ftfft court adhered tothecotiimod law raic, that the husband was responsible the debts of the wife contracted before marriage. It was r?peatedly ;aec!arecl that the liability rested not only on tlo fact that the husband Upon the maj riage became the owner of the wiAra personal property, wjico reduced to possession, and of a life estate In Ji'er realty, but upon the ground f tht he wase entitled to' the "ei tire proceeds tf hert'ime ant? her labor, andcthat notwithstanding the law of 186I!fe was still entiled to her earnings;' li a- ?? A MARRIED WOMAN MAY NOW J3 SUED., - at law, upon her exxntracts, as to". hr separate property. She may now execute a valid lease of her separate estate with out joining her husband, and : without his consent. So diverse are tbe-Erign't' and interest, the dutics,oblitfonsvafaad disabilities of husbond and wife now, from what they formerly were, that'll would bo most unreasonable to hold him still liable for her forts, committed withouth his pretence, and without his consent and approbation. If he is not bound to pay her debts, why should tie be responsible for her torts ? i cs,l WHEN THE GROUND WORK IS fJONfe as to one, it is gone as to the other, anil the structure of the past .mast falli ho fore innovations of the present. She is now, to a very great extent,- iade pendent of him, and. is clothed .witii rights and powers ample for her -awji protection, and, so far as - her separate property is concerned, is responsible for her debts and contracts with reference to it. They are not.tpnc, as.erctofoif . They are one in name, and .are bound by solemn contract, sanctioned by both L Divine and human law, to, mutual respect ; shoold be of the sf me iousej- hold, and one in love and affection.. Hut a line has been drawn be f weep them, distinct and ineffaceable except by legislative power. . His legal .sunrej macy is gone, and. , v , f ' - " ...55 l itii' THE 8CEPTRK HAS DEPARTED 1 FROM She, on the contrary, can ""'have' her separate csta'c ; ' can ' contract ' wtifi reference to it, can sue arid be sucTl i?t law upon the contracts thua i)ade7; can sue in her own name top injury to her person' and slander' oThcf character, and can enjoy theiSfrurts of her time arid labor, free4 frbraf-'irie control and intcrerencR of the 'hu's band. The-chaioe f-tbrpast have been broken day; the jrgress:on of the present, and shr, , may : rA0Wj enter upon the stem conflicts of life .tjntrupj meled. , She no longer, clings to ano! depends upon man; but baa; the., legal right and aspires to battle with him; in the contest of the iorum : outvie , him in the healing art; to climb. with mm the steps of fame, and to , share,, wjtf him in every occupation, .ijerxaio, and hands.and tongue arc her, own, an ghe shouid bo responsibie forlanders uttered by herself. Our opiniondtithat the necessary operatioaa-oiUie statutes ja to discharge tbe ;husnrrAOi;hifl liability for the tortatof the twlfe ,duriu coverture, which s? , hof neUhejr;, udejf, advised, nor countenanced. V u . ,. . . , . .. .It initial 4 The judgment b , reversed and fixe cause remanded. , v; r. nt(J irtW ' Sheldon,' J., files herewith a: distant, ing opinion, in which Scots, Jicdncurs also Breese, J. .' Chicago Tr .ibwlipi Post Offices were first established in France in 1464 ; in England 1851 ; in in Germany in lCllr X