Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 10, Number 25, Indianapolis, Marion County, 21 November 1850 — Page 3

DEBATES IX THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. REPORTED BY HARVEY FOWLER, ESQ. Rights of .Married Women to Property. "WicvzsDAY, Nov. 13, 1S50. Mr. OWEN: I confess to my anxiety regarding the fate of the sections that have just been read. Ha subject of greater Importance than that to which they refer has come up, since we met here. Ho saltiect oi greater importance will engage our attention, till we close- our labors and go hence. As in estimation, next to the right of enjoy. inj life and liberty, our Constitution enumerates the right of acqniring, possessing, protecting property. And these sections refer to the latter right, heretofore declared to be natural, inherent, inalienable, yet virtually withheld from one-half the citizens of our Stale. Women are not represented in our legislative halls. They have no voice in selelecting thoso who make laws and constitutions for them. There may be good reason for that. I enter not on the enquiry. Öne reason often given for excluding women from the right of suffrage is an expression of confident belief, that their husbands and their fathers will surely guard their interests, and see fair justice meted out to these, the especial objects of their care. I should like to have a littla more confidence in this opinion than experience has given me. I should like, for the honor of my sex, to believe, that the legal rights of "women are, at all times, as jealonsly guarded, as they would be, if women had otes to give to those who watch over their interests, and to withhold from those who pass by and neglect thcra. I impute to no gentleman the deliberate intention to render less than instice to the other sex. merely because we have disfranchised them. I but say, that self-interest is a marvellous sharpener of the wits, and causes ns to think of, and enables ns to discover, many things, which, without its quickening influence, might escape oar observation. - SutTer me, sir, in defence of my scepticism. on this point, to lay before you and this Convention an item from my legislative recollections. It will be thirteen years next winter, since I (then a member of the Legislature and of its committee to revise the laws) reported, from a seat just over the way, a change in the then existing law of descent. At that time the widow of an intestate dying without children, was entitled, under ordinary circumstances, to dower in her husband's real estate and one-third of his personal

property. I he chango proposed, was to give her onethird of the real estate of her husband absolutely, and two-thirds of his personal property; far too little, indeed; but yet as great an innovation as Mr. Marshall of Jefferson, "and myseli' (we were the sub-committee to whom that law had been referred) thought it probable we could carry. A stormy debate ensued ; in the course of which, I remember it well, I was assailed by a distinguished lawyer, then a member of the house, in no mild or measured terms, as a man seeking to subvert the whole order of society ; as an innovator, te whom nothing was sacred, not even laws and principles dating back to the days of Edward the Confessor. The attack failed in its object ; the proposed change became the law of the land ; was every where received, so far as I have heard, with approbation, and remained in force, until a commission appointed in 1S41, reported, a year or two afterwards, our present Revised Code. How stands the law now? As resards rcnl estate, you will find the answer on raso 437 of that Revised C"dc. N(. thing but an actual inspection of the law itself could have persuaded nie, that, in this nineteenth century and in this republican land, such cotilJ ever have been permitted to ilisgrnco our Statute Book. I am very sure, that there are gentlemen on this lloor to whom even now. some of its provisions will appear incredible. The widow of an intestate, in case there be no children, and in case there be father or mother, or brother or sister of the husband, alive, is heir to no part whatever of her deceased husband's real estate. She is entitled to dower only; that is, to the rents and profits, during her life, of one third of his estate. If there be no father, no mother, no brother, no sister, you imagine, perhaps, that the law suffers her to enjoy, unmolested, the property her husband has left behind lim. Ain expectation t The law goes in search of a grandfather or a grandmother; or, failing these, of an undo or an nur. t; or failing these again, of some cousin or cousin's child; anil if it find any such, it grants twothirds of the husband's property t these relatives ; living, perhaps, in some distant reirion; unknown, it may have been, even to the deceased, from whom they inherit. But yet ajain. Say there bo no father, no mother, no brother, no sister, no grandfather, no grandmother, no uncle, no aunt; not even a cousin or a cousin s child ; then, you feel assured, the law will be satisfied, instead of wandering over the world in search of kins-folk more distant still, to let the widow take the property left by the husband she has lost. Again you are at fault ! The law has no such intention ! It institutes the inquiry whether, under the- title of "nearest of kin," some far-c.iT relative, little dreaming of such a windfall, cannot be ferreted out, upon whom it may bestow, as the Statute has it, '"'one equal half of tho inheritance, as an heir of the ntestatc;" the widow receiving the other half only. And it is at last, after t'ie law has exhausted its ingenuity in discovering some relative, no matter how remote in feeling or in blood, in whose favor it may divert the dead husband's property from her who was once the wife of his bosom, it is then only, as a last, reluctant nltcrnativ, that the law permits the childless widow to inherit the farm, where, perchance, Lor youth and womanhood have been spent! I marvel, since we are all somewhat related through our common ancestor, Adam, that it lias never been pro. posed to carry out the iniquitus principle a little fur. ther, and enact, that whore no relatives, how remote soever, can be found, half tae widow's portion shall be equally divided among the citizens of the county, or of the Slate. The gross injustice, in its practical workings, of such a rule of descent tlcs not fully appear, until we call to mind, as in approaching all questions of legal reform it behooves ns to d,tuo actual condition in lifo of the mass of our population in this State. We have few among us, who are, in the proper acceptation of the term, poor; we have few who may be called rieh. Most of our citizens arc in moderate circumstances. But look a little farther. We are an agricultural population. Farming is our chief occupation. A large majority of our people are small proprietors of land, the best and happiest and most independent class in the world. They live on their own farms, purchased or inherited, usually in early youth; worth, on an average, if the owner have survived to enlarge and improve th?ra, perhaps from a thousand to two thousand dollars, and a(Trding an annual rental, say of from ona hundred to two hundred dollars. Suppose the rental to average a hundred and fifty dollars. That is a living; a very humble one, indeed, but still a living. If the law permitted the widow to inherit it, were it in life rental only, t,he would be raised above pecuniary dependence. And is it not right and just that she should be? In the heavy labors incident to the settlement f a new country, who takes lot and part! Is it the man alone? Is there no task but that ho performs? no home duties, no domestic labor, sometimes weighing down his weaker partner even to the grave? I appeal to the successful settler, who has raised his cabin first in the wild woods, has gradually opened a flourishing farm, and, at last, has seen flow in upon him comfort and plenty, whether he, alone and unaided, built up his fortune and made comfortable his home? I ask him, whether there was not one who saved, while be accumulated; whether, when his arm was busy without, her hand was idle within? I ask him, whether his heart Hoes not revolt at the idea, that when he is carried to Lis long home his widow shall see snatched from her, by an inhuman law, the very property her watchful care had mainly contributed to increase and leep together? Yet this idea, unnatural, revolting as it is, is carried out, in all its unmitigated rigor, by the statute to which I have just referred. Ont of a yearly rental of a hundred and fifty dollars, it is seldom that the wid w of an intestate becomes entitled to more than fifty ; a)t urn wholly inadequate to her support. The other hundred dollars eo whither? To the husband's father or mother? Yes, if they survive; and, in that ease, there is a chance that they may aid, and care for, their daughter-in-law. But if they are dead, what then? A brother-in-law or a sister-in-law takes it. Why are their rights preferred to the wife's? But let that pass, and suppose that there are no brothers and sisters. Then comes in the claim of the husband's uncle or his aunt or his cousin. Do husbands toil through n life-time, in order to support their aunts and uncles and cousins? What wonld le thought of a law that should compel a man to maintain them, in preference to his own wife? Yet they inherit two-thirds of the farm. They take two-thirds of the income. Ay! if but a single cousin's child, be it only six months old, survive, to that infant go a hundred dollars of tho rental, and to the widow there remains but the pittance of fifty. Can injustice go beyond this? Yes! for if aunts and uncles ar.d cousins all fail, some undefined relative. making oat a claim as nearest, of kin, still carries otf from the widow one-half her deceased husband s estate. What think you of a law like that, on t'ie statute book of a civilized and a Christian land . While the husband snr vives, while Lis sostaininz arm is tili Imsily providing for ber, whom , when she stood beside him, a bride in her youthful prime, he had sworn through life to comfort and support, so long their entire property is there, to aid Ms exertions. When that sustaining arm i laid in tho prave and the widow is left, without husband to cherish, v ithont sn to offer her a home, then comes the law,

more cruel thaa death, and decrees, that poverty shall be added to desolation! -I have a batter opinion of those with whom I now serve, abetter opinion of my sex, abetter opinion of tho people of my adopted State, than to believe, for an instant, that, if this law were held up distinctly before us, in all its revolting deformity, for our acceptance or rejection, wo would hesitate a single moment, in condemning and rejecting it. But there are sins of omission as well as sins of commission. What avails it that we think justly and feel rightly, if that just thinking and right feeling bear no fruit? Say, delegates of the people of Indiana-, answer and say, whether you, whether those who sent you here, are guiltless in this thing? Have you done justice? Have you loved mercy? Have you visited the widow, in ber affliction? Have you not rather, by tolerating on your Statute Book snch a law as that, trodden down the crushed heart, added new weight to tho heavy burdens,

fresh sting to the grievous sorrow, of ber, whom the bereaving hand of Death has already cut ofl", alike from affection and from support? The instance here selected in proof that our law ma-, kers have neglected to guard the interests of that sex who never enter our legislative councils to speak for themselves, is far from being an isolated one. Take another item from the same statute of descents; the every dar case of a husband dying intestate and leaving a widow and children. In that case, as every one knows, the widow, as to her husband's real estate, has dower onlv; she is entitled, during life, to one-third of its rents anil profits. The law considers it impolitic to trust her with more than a third of the rental. Ask any member of the legal profession the reason for such distrust, ard he will remind you. that the interests of the children must be cared for, must be guarded against neglect or injustice. Neglect, injustice, from whom, I pray you? From tlieirown mother? But reverse the case, and suppose it is the wife who dies, and leaves a widower and the children she has borne him. What portion of the rents and profits of his wife's real estate does the law assign to him? Tho whole. As tenant by the courtesy he takes the whole. Cut there are the children. Are their interests not to be cared for? Are they not to be protected asainst neslect or injustice? No; not in the ease of the father. No mistrust of him! No fears, that he may marry again, and that a step-mother may rule bis household. The father is trusted. The mother is not. Does not nature, docs not experience, does not Holy Writ itself cry out against the invidious preference? "Can a mother forget her child?"' If there be, in this world, one holy sentiment, one feeling, strong, faithful, trustworthy, universal in its prevalence, that sentiment, that feeling, is a mother's love, for the child she has borne and nursed. I ask you, Mr. President, I ask my fellow-delegates, whether it need further argument to prove, that we ought to mistrust ourselves, when wo act in any matter touching the rights and interests of women? The absent Acre been forgotten; they who have no vote or voice here Aare been neglected; it avails nothing to conceal or to deny it. But let us turn to the question more immediately before us. Let us pass from the case of the widow, and look to that of t'.io wife; and let us enquire, whether the interests of the ono are better cared for by law than llios of the other. The old doctrine of the Common Law, that the legal existence of tho woman is suspended during marriage, the same doctrine that has existed for centuries in England, still substantially regulates, in n majority of the States, the relations of husband and wife, ns to property. In a general way, tho legal effect of marriage is, , First, The husband Incomes entitled, from the instant of marriage, t- all the poods and chattels of the wife. His right is absolute, unconditional. He may sell every part of his wife's personal property, whether owned by her before marriage or cowing to her alter mnrriage, except only her "necessary apparel." A married woman cannot, therefore, legally sell the smallest article of personal property; she cannot legally give away tho most trifling trinket, no matter whether it was inherited or the produce, even of her own labor. A farmer's wifo cannot, in her own right, sell the poultry she has raised or the hotter sho has made. Under ordinary circumstances, a salo by her of poultry or butter in the market, is, indeed, good : but that is önly because the law regards her as her husband s ngent; just as it would regard his hired laborer, sent to town to sell the some articles. Even if a husband neglect to provide for his children, and the wife, by her labor support them, the produce of her lalor is his. Say that he has been absent fur weeks or months squandering what money he has in dissipation ; say that, in tho meantime, bis wife, faithful to her home duties, has contrived, by constant lalmr, ns a seamstress, perhaps, or a washerwoman, to supply his place; suppose that she has laid by in her trunk the same trunk, perhaps, in which her mother had packed, with careful hand, on her daughter's marriage day, the little froporly she had to give ber, snpjiose, that the wile ind laid by in that trunk a few dollars, hardly end bitterly earned, saved w ith difficulty ns a scanty fund to purchase clothing for her children against the inclemency of winter; and suppose alas! how often is the case a real one! suppose, that the drunken husband comes home some evening, breaks ojtcn tha trunk nad carries off tho money ; is that larceny? has ho stolon? By no means. He broke open his own trunk, lie took, so the law declares, his own money! Secondly. Tho husband acquire, in virtue r( the marriage, the rents and profits, (in all cases, during her life.) of his wife's real estate. The wife loses them, as absolutely as she docs her personal property. The husband's prospective right to ;hem throughout his lifo may be sold, at common law, fur the benefit of bis creditors. Thus, if we suppose a married woman bringing, in marriage, real estate, say of the. yearly rental of some two or three hundred dollars; enough, if it were assured to her, to maintain herself and her children; then, if the husband, by extravngonco or otherwise, become involved in debt, his right during life, to this rental of his wife's estate may bo taken and sold on execution. Tho fee of the real estate remains, indeed, in the wife ; but its rents and profits all that it shall yield during the husband's life goes to another. If, under these circumstances, the husbund desert his wife and children, she remains without remedy or resource. Death alone, by removing her unworthy partner, can restore to the deserted one the means of supporting and educating, from the produce of her own land, her own children. The flagrant injustice of this provision of the Common Law led, about four years ago, to the passage of a Statute by our Legislature, that the rents and troths of a married woman's lands "fehall be deemed and taken to be her separate property," and may not be sold for her husband's debts. These words of the Statute bar, I be lieve, the marital goes. right. AU this is well, as far as it In all cases, then, in which a farmer or other person, is sufficiently rich to be able to give to his daughter, on her marriage, or to bequeath to her, at bis death, property in hi.nd, she is already, under our Statute, protected in its rents and profits. But this protection docs not extend to personal property. If a lather, or a mother, be too poor to spare to the daughter a farm ; if all they can give be but certain household furnishings, turned off" from the old loom, perhaps, that stands in tho cabin corner; the produce of long hours of ruatcrtinl laIor, spent, that a favorite daughter may not go empty-handed, to her future home ; if this be all the young wife's property, the law refuses any protection whatever, whether against the husband or the husband's creditor. The mother's last gift may be sold off" in the public street by a careless constable or a reckless husband. I have seen it done. Some years ago, there came to New Harmony, the village in which I reside, two young men, from Kentucky, where but a few weeks before they had married sisters. While awaiting a boat, they persuaded their wives, n the plea of economy, to occupy a cabin about a mile in the country, leaving lehind them some five or six large boxes containing . various articles of home manufacture of the most substantial character, sheetings, towelings, coverlets, blankets, and a large stock of home-made clothing. The next day the scoundrels opened these boxes, bold off" at public auction, every article contained therein, and, the day after, left for parts unknown, with the money which they had legally, but most iniquitously, obtained. The poor girls, thus robbed and deserted, were indebted to the private charity of our citizens for the means to ietnrn, desolate and penniless, to their father's house. Is all this as it should be? Do we mete out fair and equal justice to rich and poor, when we enact laws to protect the land-owner in her rents, and neglect to afford similar protection, to the less fortunate and wealthy? to her who owns, perhaps, bot a single hundred dollars worth of property? or, (a graver injustice )"et!) to her who has inherited nothing but willing hands and a stout heart, and who but asks, in case a vagaliond husband leave her to toil on, unaided, in fulfilment of the duties he violates and neglects, that the Jaw will secure to her that, to which every human being has an inherent right, the ownership of the produce of her own labor. But there are reasons urged, in favor of refusal. The peace of tho family may be invaded, the harmony of tho conjugal relations marred, by this division of interest. I reply, in the first place, that we have already risked these consequences by the law we have passed as to real estate. Nearly four years have elapsed since its passage. Do husband and wife live together less harmoniously now, in our State, than they did before? I have heard no such complaint. And if we have thus trusted, and safely trusted, in the greater, shall we fear to trust ia the less? But I meet this objection on broader ground. Let us look at it in tho face. Let us dissect and carefully examine it for therein is contained after all, thesubstantial argument urged by the opponents of this reform. , x iMs ruiurni .itumy siaieu is, mat, to ensure conju gal harmony, the wife must Iks divested of all rights of ; property whatever, and remain, at every moment," xvl I ly dependent npon the er.se of justice of the husbs whr.l

for every thing beyond that bare support which the law, if it be appealed to, will allow her. Is, then, the secret of domestic felicity to be found in pecuniary dependence? A strange anomaly it would be in human affairs, if that were to! Has pecuniary dependence a tendency to elevate, to purify, to civilize the character? Is that a doctrine aNman would choose to teach his son ay! or his daughter? . Dependent, to some extent the relation of a wife to her husband, is and always must be. Men have monopolized all the most profitable occupations of life; custom sanctions this; and even if it did not, women would be, in a measure, shut out from these, by the engrossing character of their maternal cares and duties. There is great danger, that this dependence, natural and necessary as it is, should give birth, on the one hand, in coarse and overbearing natures, to tyranny, and on the other, in timid and yielding natures, to abject fear. Shall the law increase this danger, aggravate these evil results? Shall it make the

Cecuniary dependence of a married woman absolute, opcless; reaching to an utter denial of the right to call her own even the smallest article of household property? And to this abject dependence, are we to trace, as to their birth-place, the virtues, the endearments, that make Home the cherished word it is? From source so base and low can any thing good or noble spring? Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Is woman's domestic virtue the creatnre ol'a Statute that places her as to property, in the same category with the African bondsman, the infant, the idiot, the insane? Out upon it ? Woman is the good, the unselfish being we find her far better sho always was, in every moral attribute, than man woman is, what she is, not in virture of a heartless law in spite cf it : Look, I nray you, a little more narrowly yet, at the doctrine that the harmony of the family connection rests upon the pecuniary dependence of the wife. The very argument presumes m the husband kindness, indulgence, generosity. It presupposes in him a spirit which virtually abrogates the law. I know, I rejoice to know, that there are many eases of married couples in whose relations to each other an alteration of the law which should make the wife an independent owner of property, would work no practical change : cases in which tha husband, uncompllcd by law är.d following a delicate instinct of jus tice, Cither legally or virtually places Us wile in a position of pecuniary independence. But it is not for such men, or such cases, that laws are made, or are necessary. It is the province of law to restrict, not the generous and the iust, but the violent, the uniust, the encroaching. It is for the bad, not tho good, that legislation is required Yet even in tho case of a husband pood, and just, and kind, can we assert with truth that the law is free from injurious effect? The power of granting pecuniary fa vors ought not to bo all on ono side. It must grate, sometimes, on a sensitive and generous nature, to repeat, even to an indulgent husband, the request before every little purchase, lor money ; made at a moncnt, perhaps, when it can ill be spared; just and proper, it may be, yet to which, beyond a bare support, the petitioner has not as much legal right as the hired servant girl has, to demand her wages. " The confidence of familiar affection takes, it is true, from this, as from every other false po sition, its sting ; but the position is not tho less false, the law not the less inequitable, on that account We trust to th husband's generosity to supply the wife ä it hall she may properly demand. And can we'not trust to tho wife's generosity, if she be the independent owner of property, to grnnt to the husband, in his time ot need, all lie can reasonably require f Do we Und, in tho other sex, less liberality than in ours? Arc their affections less warm, their sympathies less active ? In the dark hour of adversity, do they cling less faithfully, do they sacrifice less freely, than wo do? That is not my experience of women. Ruth, in her sclf-devo-tion, when, in the expressive words of Scripture sho clave unto Naomi, is but the type of I;er sex. 1 he Jan guagc of woman, not to a faithful friend alone, often to one most unworthy, tobe called licr eherislier and protec tor .is the same to-day, asit was three thousand years ago "Whither thou goest, thither will I go. Where thou lodgcst, there will I lodge. Where thou diest will I die, and there will I bo buried. Tin Lord do so to me and more also, if aught save death part mc &ai thee." Women, even with their whole property in their own hands and at their solo uisiiosa, are much more likely to bestow it imprudently than to withhold it selfishly Ought we to deny to them the gratitieation, dear to every I 1 I .111-1 generous minu,yci wiinin tue reacn oniyoi mc inuepenu ent owner of property, of aiding, by pecuniary sacrifice the object of their affections? Under the happiest marriages, the provisions of the Common Law nre but nugatory. They ore never better than useless. But what shall we say of them when the dependenc e of the w ife for everything is, not upon a gen erous tuend, but upon a harsh, selfish, exacting master or a l aggravated case, upon a reckless, improvident spend thrift? These aro the cases where a change of law is wanted. These arc the cases where tho wile should have power to secure, from tyranny or extrava gance, some pecuniary protection for herself and her children, Bgninst dependance and want. It is an argument lioth weak and worthless that if wo do, by law, witiilinM n fair share of independent power from women, they will still contrive, by management, to get that and moro than their share. Say that women in the mass did, much more frequently than they do, usurp by artful manrruviing, the rights which the law denies them, is tho denying law, therefore, just in its principle moral in its influence? An Eastern despot's fawning favorite, though his life be, at any moment, at his ma ters disposal, may acquire unbounded sway, and become mc virtual rnier oi tue ianu. uui invormsm is an improper, because- immoral, source of power. A noblo naturo will not stoop to the intrigues through which such power is commonly reached. We ought not so to place women, that any of their rights must be won by arts of blandishment. That is a demoralizing situation. Where true affection exists, i win show itself without any rclercnce to property Where it docs not exist, it degrades tho character to wear its counterfeit, from mcrcernary motive Thcro is a sjteeics of very silly scntlmentalism which it is the fashion to put forth in after dinner toasts and other equally veracious forms, about women being the only tyrant in a free Republic; about the chains she im poses on her willing slaves, the despotism of her resist less arts, the sovereign power of her conquering beauty It would bo much to our credit, it we would administer little less flattery and a little more justice. A VOICE. Consent to that sentiment! Cries "consent, consent!" Mr. OWEN. It needed not such expression from the Convention to assure me, that the sentiment finds an echo in their hearts. I know well that it does. Mr. President, I have thus briefly and slightly sketch cd the doctrine of the Common Law as it regards the property of inarmed women, and have adverted in gen cral terms, to the consequences of that doctrine. So harsh has that law been found in all modern nations where it prevails; so unjust in its working under frequent contingencies, so widely at variance with that mild spirit of civilization w hich is gradually replacing the law of the stronger; that the mitigating aid of equity has been universally invoked, to modify the oppressive severity of its provisions. The chief relief thus afforded rests in a species of evasion. The wife may not own property, may-not receive gifts, may not accept legacies; but others may own, accept, receive, for her. A married woman may acquire and control both real and personal property by the intervention of trustees. Upon this principle, marriage settlements, so common in Great Britain, are executed. The extent of relief there obtained by this evasion of the Common Law, may bo judged from the opinion expressed by an English lawyer of great experience and referred to by Chancellor Kent, that so extensive have become the trusts growing out of marriage settlements, in England, that half tho property of the Kingdom is now vested in nominal owners. Among us, in this Western country, this cumbrous and expensive and somewhat dangerous machinery of Trusteeship is, comparatively, but seldom resorted to. It is too elaborate for our common use. And why should it be required at all? If it lie right and proper that married women should own and acquire and control property, why this tortuous and doubtful manner of permitting it? The change embodied in the sections now under discussion is radical but it is gradual also. It affects marriages hereafter contracted, and applies to existing marriages only in case the parties record their desire to come under its provisions. Thus it will not too rudely jar on present usages and existing interests. If a woman, about to be married, desire to convey her property to her futuie husband, so as to subject herself to the same disabilities under which she now labors, she will have the opportunity to do so. If she do not avail herself of that opportunity, It may be taken as presumptive evidence, that she prefers to the present law the amendatory provision which I am advocating. It may be said, that by parity of reasoniugj if a woman about to marry now neglect to protect her property by marriage settlement, that should be regarded as presumptive evidence, that she prefers and elects to be governed by, the existing law. But this would be a false inference. At no moment of life, under ordinary circumstanees, is the confidence of a woman brought so actively into play, and all prudential considerations so lulled to sleep, as when she gives her hand to the man of her choice. We take improper advantage of this trustful state of mind, if we so frame the law, that we compel the bride, as the only means of obtaining reasonable security in the future, to show, or seem to show, suspicion of him to whom she is entrusting the happiness of her life. It is quite enough that the question, legally suggesting itself, should bo: " what will you give himt" and, tven in lha4 ease, sho is likely to grant too much. But to give to that question the odious form, " what will you withhold from him?" and expect her, in reply, shutting ber ears and ber heart asaiast the sül-contiding im pulses of ynuti? and love, to follow out, with cold delib-

nd,'eration. the severe dictates of an wtpcrienee which

we owe to years of wrong and suffering alone this is to evince either ignorance of human nature or disregard" of human welfare.

Tho lawgiver is, or should 1, dispassionate and experienced ; the young betrothed is usually neither the one nor the other. The law, therefore, interposing its protecting shield, should, by general enactment, create those checks and guards, which she is not likely, even though she has the right while yet single, to provide, in her individual case, for herself. If she see fit to dispense w ith the guards and checks thus provided, so be it; but let us not expect her to create them. The forethought of parent or guardian may, indeed, and often does, supply the deficiency; but in this there is no certainty: nor can the chance of such interposition at all usury neglect on tue part oi mat uencrai uuaraian, me L.aw. But in securing to married women rights of property, wo must bear in mind, that these rights bring with them duties. The laws of New York. Wisconsin, and other States, seem to have been framed in forgetfulness of this: but the Civil Law admits, and provides for it; requiring that the wife shall bear a portion of the marriage expenses. This proportion varies according to the necessity of the case and the means of the wife. Tu meet this, the constitutional provision should de clare, that the property of married women shall be se cured to them, under equitable conditions. It is lor the aw afterwards to determine, in detail, what these condi tions shall be. Again, as a legislative provision we would do well to adopt another principle from the Civil Law. Under that system, the wife has not, strictly speaking, equal rights with the husband ; for to every partnership there must bo a manager, and the husband, from the charae ler of his avocations as compared with the wife and mother, natural!? becomes such. If the wife leave her property in her husband s hands, failing personally to administer it, it is considered to be under his manage ment. It is only in case of formal opposition on her part that ho becomes responsible for its rents and pro'ts. In ordinary cases, under any law, the wifo will usually leave the property in her nusband's hands. In a gener al w-ay, she will resume her control over it, only if he evince a reckless or spendthrift disposition; as it is just and prudent she should do. Ono other provision we should copy into our Statute from the Civil Law; namely, that in the case of debts contracted by the wife lielore marriage the husband shall not be holden, but the wife and her estate shall be liable. It is unnecessary that I should enter into further de tail. General provisions are all we can properly adopt in an Organic Law. And now, Mr. President, in -conclusion, let me advert to one objection, always a strong one, always carrying with it much weight when there is question of novel re form. It is commonly dangerous, we are told, to enter a new and untrodden path. So it may be. Yet if we of pioneer America if we, the tenants of these western wilds, where roamed and ruled but half a century ago, the In dian and the beast of the forest if we had never enter ed any but the beaten track, where I pray you, would have been the power, where the prosperity of the West, to-day f In the distant future, yet; unhorr, untried for! True it is, that wc should not enter an unfrequented path, without seeking to learn, from experienced guides, what is its character and w hither it leads. Nor, in the case before us, have I done so. Thirteen years ago, when this matter first especially engaged my attention, I addressed private letters on the subject to two of the most distinguished names among the then living jurists of America now numbered with the dead! to Chancallor Kent and to Jndgo Story. From both I received replies; and from these, with the permission of the Convention, I will here read a few extracts. Chancellor Kent begins by admitting that be is '-'nbt insensible to the many harsh features contained in tho Knglish Common Law code rclativo to tho relation of husband and wife." He is not in favor of an entire substitution of tho Civil Law fur the Common Law; nor is any such proposition embodied in these Sections. He says: "I am not for changing the Common Law system ns a whole and introducing as a substitute that of Louisiana. I prefer our own, but vit!i an inclination to have parts of it ameliorated." In Judgo Story's letter to mo he expresses, in more decided terms than did the author of the celebrated commcntaries, bis opinion in rcjjnrd to tho propriety of radical reform in this matter. If is words arc: "Tho present state of the Common Law wilh regard to the rights of property between husband and wife, is inequitable, unjust and ill adapted to the purposes of a refined and civilized society." (Can language be stronger than that!) "There arc" ho continues, "in the Civil Law system a great many ndmirablo provisions; and I am not sure, ns a whole, whether it does not werk better than that of the Common Law on this subject." Farther on ho adds, that, in his opinion, our law as it stands, "requires great alterations and amendments for tho protection of the property of married women, coming to them after as well as before marriage." I consider myself fortunate in thus being able to pro. duee, in support of the position I am now defending, the opinion of one of the most eminent jurists our country has ever produced. Can wo find more experienced guides than these, from whom to obtain information touching tho new road wo are proposing 'o enter? But this is not all. The road has been travelled by thousands, by millions before us. In Kuropc, the nations of France, Germaay, Spain, Holland and others tive independent rights of property to tho wife. And let me cite to you what Kent says of the result. "Whatever doubts,' this is his language, "whatever doubts may arise in the mind of a person educated in the school of the Common Law, as to the wisdom or policy of the powers, which, by the Civil Law and the law of those modern nations that have adopted it, are conceded to the wife in matters of property; yet it cannot be denied, that tho pre-eminence of the Christian nations of Europe and of their descendants and colonists in every other quarter of the globe, is most strikingly displayed in tho equality and dignity which their institutions confer upon the female character." But we need not cross the Atlantic to find examples of the adoption of this principle; no, nor yet need we descend the Mississippi to New Orleans. Nearly half the States of the Union have already led the way before us. Women aro already recognized as independent owners of property in New York, in Pennsylvania, in Maine, in Ohio, in AYisconsin. in Arkansas, in Flori da, in Alabma, in Texas, and in other States; among them the youngest sister or tue Conlederacy, but recently welcomed into the Union. I read from the Constitution of California. "All property, both real and personal, of tho wifo owned or claimed before marriage, and that acquired afterwards by gift, devise or descent shall be her separate property ; and laws shall be passed more clearly de fining tho rights of the wife, in relation as well to her separate property as to that held in common with her husband. Laws shall also be passed providing for the registration of the wife s separate property." 1 his section goes lurtnet than ours. It recognizes that feature of the Civil Law, which is usually called the "community of gains" or the "conjugal partnership," according to which the produce of the joint industry of husband and wife, durinj marriage, becomes and re. mains their joint property. Our sections, as reported, leave the introduction, or the omission, of that principle optional with the Legislature. The path before us, then, is no wild, untrodden one, surrounded with hazardous adventure, beset with untn cd dangers. That same rtath has been trodden already safely, happily, by other States, by other nations; and which of them all has ever yet sought to retrace its steps? - Do you scruple, do you still doubt, whether our people at home will second and approve so righteous a change? Think better of your State, more worthily of your lehow oitizens: lias no generous chord been touched within yourselves, even by the appeal, feeble though it be compared to the justice of the cause, which I have this day made to yout And think you no responsive chord beats in the hearts of those who sent us here? I tell you, there docs! Again and again, to crowds assembled in the country school house or under the shelter of the forest tree, I have myself appealed to it and never appealed in vain! I predict, that if you now record, on tho pa ges of our new Constitution, the declaration, that never again shall the right to acquire, to possess, to protect property, bo denied by our laws, to one half the human race, I predict, that the declaration, when it goes lorth Irom this hall, will be met witn one coraiai neartfelt "well done!" from every nook and corner of the land. MARRIED, At Etliubursh, on Monday rooniiii, the lth insl, by the Rev. D. D. M'loiiry, .Mr. M. Fogaity to Miss Elizajucth F. Moosky, daughter of Edward Mooney, Esq., same place. We wish the happy couple long life and happiness, and hope they may never have cause to dissolrt (Aa L'niom which they have thus made. STATE OF INDIANA, MARION COUNTY. Ix ths Makig Circuit Coctit. Oct. Tskx. 1830. In Ckanetry. James Anderson, Jr., John W. Anderson, William McLaue A John Barbee, partners trading; under the name, style, and firm of Andersons', Sic Lane Jfc Barbee, at id Levin L. 8hreva, John W. Phreve. and Reddick D. Anderson, panner tradinr un der the name, style, and firm of L. L. Sbrere Co., ti. Palmer Patrick and Rachel L. Patrick his wife, and the President and Di t prior nf th Imlianannli and Hellefniiuune Railroad ComnaJiT. THE above defendant Palmer Patiick ia hereby notified that the above complainants have filed in the office of the Clerk of the Marion Circuit Court their bill of complaint, and also an affidavit A4 a disinterested nerswn that said Patrick ia not a resident of the frttsls of Indiana. The said Farne k ia therefore notified to appear te this suit on the firat day of the next terra of said Court, to be held on the fourth .Monday in October instant. octl7-3w. "WM. STEWART, Clerk. SOU A SOAP for FamiN u. just received and for ale low wholeii'er.'ire'wil. by J. P. MDDAf.Ii, cctJl . . J"pfiet al Apothecary.'

. COMMERCIAL. Indianapolis Wholesale Prices Current. Corrected Weekly for the Indiana State Sentinel, BY KTRLATJD fc nTZSIBBON,

FOKWARDING AND C0KMIS8I0N MERCHANTS, ARB WstOLtSALE DKALL1S IX Groceries, Liquors, Tobacco, and Produce, EAST SIDE OF THE DEPOT. BACOX f. ft. GROCERIES Hot, rouad,.... Shoulder,....... Clesr sides, Hams none I 4aöi 9alC ,2.504.4! Eroona I.COaSO Lead, bar, 61; liCad, white, pure, 2.1o l ead. No. 1, 2.W 1.10a! J0 6i Jw5 .. tSaLCO .... 6-a?5 .... 37a50 40 BEEP cwt net,. CANDIES . ft.,.. Oil, linaeed,... Oil, lard Oi?, tperm,.... Oilr Tanner',. Turpentine,... Bean, white,. Potatoes, Oniona, Cheeae r.utter, roll, .. Ird... COTTON YAKX p. fl,., ,231 CAADLES f . Mr, 23! Mould, ....10) CORN MEAL 9. bu., 50, FLOU R p . brL, 3.003 JM ...50 9 l0lä läald isaro EEC ITS f .bunhel,. A nnla rrn 1 Apples, dried ..ÄMiol, Peaches, dried, !' Almonds, f. It, 15su20; Kaiinii, p.box, 4X0 Beeswax,.... Ginseng,.... , Tallow, GLASS p. box. P by 10, lby 13. EISH Mackerel, No. 1, t1. brl., . xa l l.r krl , 3 "öa4.rfl 4-2i AO. I, qr. brL,. J, Ul. Uli....... ,4.C0a4.25, HAY f. ton. .2.5)a3.00l Timothy o. 1, kit. .... exoaio.oo none No. 2. tf.brl.. .läOan.00' Clover. No. 2. bf. brl.. 7.00: IRON P. D No. 3, $. brl., Satmon, kits, FEATHEKS p. j, Bent , Ordinary GRAINS V. buihel. Wheat, White, ... Red Barley Ke Corn,.... Oata, GK0CEKIES f. t .10.001 Bar ?a?V .. 3.00 2Ca2T 16a2 Round and square,. .4,i5 Castings, 4a4t SpriDgi, ii, Axles Anvils, .... 14al5 , .... CT.LEATHEK . 35a56: Sole, . B ?0i22 . .-(."; Calfskins, ? dz., lt.C0a3O.C0 . .40a45' Upper 23.UOa3O.C0 232S: Morocco, 0.W)22.CO ..UCUI fcherp SXOae.CO LIQV0RS p. gab lup. Pule lirandy, 2.C0t.2 "3 A lex. Sig. Cog.,. . . 2.0O-jrt Magloria, 3. Ca?.50 American Crandy.... 45a30 Holland Gin 1JM Old Bor. Vhik CUsl'a Coffee, heat Rio, ....12.'al3; Sugar. N. O.,... Tat? Sugar, loaf, JOali Sugar, crushed, 13a5 Tea, G. P., COaTO . Tea, Imp., SOaG'tf Tea, Y. lly, SOaOCi Pepper !,! Kpice 15aI7i Salerataa, ,...5,ü' . Knliiifi. N' () AHni-M Corn do.. V.I IJIjal.Tö . .HJil.75 l.Tiaä-SÖ . ijal.MI Old Mad. Wine, Port Wine Sherry Wiue,... Claret Wine,..., Malaga Wine,,.. Molaise, S. II., 4."a5li Tar, N. C, f .brl 5.W iicrncftic. 4Ct30 Tar, Florida, ..... .jXAILS .ke Tobacco, V. B, ........ 15a35 JCO, 4X0 4.M 4.:j 5.23 6. 53 4.23 Madder, 13al0j fd,, Cd, , Indigo, l.Wal.151 Kice 61 Copperas, 3j 4d, ... 3d. .., Koxin, Vi.n.' Brad Ginger, liii-'.V rjftK- p. ream. 40 Wrapping, 0090 . . . 6.25 Foolscap, 2X0a33 A; Bob. Boards, gr., 4.C0 30, SEEDS e. bushel. 5 Clover none t loves, Gunpowder, keg,.. Koap, 'o. 1, bar,... Cassia, , .Muni, , utmegs lJW:sl.T5 Wooden Buckets, 2.50a3.Cb Klar... 1.101 05 . ... none Timothy, .. From the Cincinnati Price Current. GENERAL COMPARATIVE PRICES or THE FOIXOWINQ AKTICLE9, IX THE MARKETS OT THE C.N IT ED STATES, AT TUZ DATEI ANNEXED : FLOUR AND CORN.

FI.OT.K. coax. . New Orleans Nov. 11 51.25 0 K) ,?3 Koston G 4.;lü4 7 C3 71 NeV,York 12 408 4.73 7071 Phila-lcipliia, 2 4 t7 (2,5 00 67 Cr,J Bitltiiiioie 8 4.ÜS (n.4 73 00 c i3 St. l-ouis fl 3.C0 fct.175 40 C4Cincinnati 12 3 4-5 ;$ 50 30 ä3J Iitmisville 10 3 03 di 3 73 37J 10 Hiilfa'.. g 3.3Ü fe3.b0 i52 HO, AND HF.EF CATTI.H. IlOi-.S P 100 CATTLE P & SET. 100 IL NET. Ciiiciimuii Nov.lt 53.50 fS.OS'f 4.50 Ixjuisviile 10 330 6; 3 (Kirt'40 St. Louis 6 3 00 fi? 3 23 3.00 A 4. 00 lloii, 1U .. .. ..($.. ilnltiinore C 4 75 Ci5.00 4 W ";5.('0 New York 6 .. CO .. HASH'S Philadelphia S 5.05 c 5 25 6.0O!.7.e5 New OiWin g 4 00 C;'.4 50 3.23 :B.2S

CINCINNATI MAKKET. Cincinnati, Nov. IP, Flocs and Chain. The market for flonr maintains its firinncs, at $.130, with a demand erunl to the supply. In Grain 1000 buhels Oats sold at 3. Fmall lot of Wheal sell from wagon at 03 C7c, and ruml jrci Is ot' prime command CO 70c. Hurley U ucihe at C3e. Rye CO cents. raoviros. There were snles to-dny of 400 Hums from block tit 3 Jo; 200 to 300 do ul Si; snl50:OUO 11 new No. 1 Lrd at 7c. There is no Bacon in market, and there are consequently no quotationa. There U some l.u'.e movement hi Mess Pork, but wc heard of uo ;.lcj. Hgs. There was a sale to-duy of 473 head, averaging CIO lb, at 3.30 net. There ere very few hi the pens, but the weather being fuvuraMe fr slaughtering and pnckiuir, arrivals will soon increase. The tu.-irkrt is firm at our quotation. Wntsfcat !n!e of 2J0 l-rl from river end Y30 do from tre at 22e; 50 do II. P. do at the snmr; 59 do from wnpou at 22jc, and 120 hf do from river at 23e. icar. .wn!c 'JO h!uU rood, fair, ami prime et Oj'ACJe, end 13 do new crop lit 6c. Molasses. A sale of S3 brl new crop . O. at 33c. CoriTE. The ou'y sale we noticed lo-tlny was 15 bes Rio at 12c. The murkct hus been very heavy, wilh but little c'oing. A material advance has lakru phice in the New Orleans murkct, which will no doubt effect the nmrkrt here. Potatoes. A sale of 103 hrls choice Pink-eyes at 5129. Hat. A sale from river of 41 boles Timothy at 512. Tallow; A sale of 30 tierces prime city rendered, at 6!e. NEW TORS MARKET. New Yore, Nov. 10, S P. 31. TLora. Dernau! good but the market stiff; Inquiry good for the home, eastern, and shipping trade, and in the latter particularly fur good Western; quotations unchanged from yesterday. Wheat. Good inquiry and the market firm for Wester t and Canesee; sales of Michigan at $1.12'iS113. Coax. Moderate business doing: quotations unsettled in the absence of ikmauiU Ti xe Continues upward in temlcncj ; prime wi b a good luslucst has lulvance.h wo quote prime at 53.50i53-C2. ViZZT. Ueef heavy. I .A a.D. I .ard firm with a fair inquiry but no cVange. Hitter hi good demand at ll12c fbr Western. Tobacco Fj-m wiia sales at HJiilSj for Ky. NEW ORLEANS MARKET. New Oeleans, Nov. 13, P. M. It has lecu raining most of the day, aitd busiue in ccnscqacnce ia dul . In Flour auJ Grain nothing was doue. Bacon. Sides are scarce at 7Jc. Shoulders Co. CorrEX. Rio is active, wilh sales of 1400 bags at 12c. Whiseev. Wbisfkey Cotton COO bales sold. Hat IIa declined. November 18, 6 P. M. Cotton. Sales of 10,000 bales at th decline. FLoua. Flour dull. Co-exj Cora S5c. Oats. Oat 50202c. Bacon. Sides very scarce at 7J2:Sc. Shoulders Cje. WuisEEY Declined to 271c. Coffei:. Sales of 2100 bags prime CotTee at tic. MADISON MARKET. - Madison, Nov. 10, 1830. Floi b. The stock in market is large, with limited demand, in consequence of recent unfavorable Southern advice 53 5553 60. Gsain. Wheat we quote at 65S70c, according to quality. Com 30335c. Rye4350c. Oati 305.35c. Flaxseed. Receipts rather heavier, with advance iu figures we quote at 51.65 P bush. Coal. We quote by quantity at 12e, by cart load at 12ic C hush. Hat. We quote at 35S40c P 100 lbs. Whiseet. Rectified from store at 23Jc. Tallow Cj s"c p B. Wool. We quote at 30S30c. - Butchers are paying from 3 to 4c for good Cattle, and 51-50 for Sheep, and 75c for Lambs. Hides Dry, 7SSc; Green, 3Stc P &. mrOTICE Is hereby given that in pursuance of an order of the .LM Probate Court of Nfarion county, I will sell at public auction on the premises, on Saturday the 14th day of December, A. D., 1550, the following described tract of land situate in Warren township, Marion county, Indiana, viz: The north-east quarter of the northeast quarter of section twenty (20), iu township sixteen (16), range Ive (5) east, containing forty acre it being a part of the real estate belonging to the estate of John Belt, deceased, late of said county. Terms of SaU. One-third cash in hand, oiie-Uunl in six months and the remaining third in twelve months from the day of side, kbe deferred payments to be secured by notes wilh good freehold seca, rity, bearing interest from date, and made payable without any relic from appraisement or valuation laws. novlMw EPHRAIM THOMAS, Adra'r. : ADMINISTRATOR'S NOTICE. Notice ia hereby given that Lners of Administration on the estate of Isaac M. Murphy; deceased, have been duly granted to the undersiTie4 on this $34 day nf October, 1850. Said estate is probably insolvent, 24-3ww) WILLIAM M. CORY. AdraV. "FTOTICE T hereby riven that letters of Administration on the IM estate of Charles fanfohr, late of the county of Marion, and State of Indiana, deceased, hexe been gaented te-the undersiru!. All persons itwiebtsd to said estate are requested to make immediate paymenu and those bavins: claim esrainst the same are notified to Uweseiit them duty authenticated for settlement. Said estate w tupK" Atat mm -a pflto ft solvent JUit. fi.nti.Mjji. Indieaapoiis, Oct t7, 1?30. Jw-. - A'haiiustter.-

GREAT COUGH EEMEDTt

SJIU-l Vmr (be Care f COUGHS, COZiDS, HOARSENESS, TJH01?CnXTX5 wnoopiuG-couGn, croup, ASTHMA and COUSUXIT.PTXOXJ TTN offering to the community this justly celebrated remedy for J3 diseasea of the throat and lunss, it is not our wish to trifle wilh the lives tr he ait of the aftUcted, but frankly to lay before them the opinions cf distinguished men, and some of the evl deuces of- iis success, from which they can judee fortheinelvcs. We sincerely pledse ourselves to make uo wild assertions or false statements r.f its efficacy, Bor will we hcM out any bop to Fuft'riug h.msMiy which facts will not wan-awl. Many proof are here givea, and we solicit an inquiry from the public into all we pahlish. tt-eline; assured they wiU find them perfectly reliable, and the mediciuc worthy their best confidence and patronage. FROM BENJ. S1I.LIMAN, M.D LX.., ETC.. Proft$OT of t'htmittrf. Mineralvi, fc, Yab Cailtft. Member rf In Lit. His:, lied. PUil. and Sci. Soctetiei of Arr.eriea and Kmroje. I deem the CHERCY PECTORAL sa admiral composition from some of the best articles in the Materia Medics, and a very efecüve remedy lor the clans of diseases it is inteedf J to cure.' Aic Hattm, Ct., Xor. 1, 1M9. PROF. CLF.AVElASD.tf J5.Woti CJtltct. Jfanr. a Writes 1 have witnessed the efircta of tour CHEltKV PECTOHAL in mv own family ind tkat f.t mv friends, and it lives me sttisfac'.ioa to state in its (vor that no medicine I have ever known has proved so eminently successful in curing diseases of Lie throat and lungs." REV. DR. OPGOOD Writes "That be considers CIltRKY PECTORAL the het medicine for Pulmonary Affections ever given to the public," and states that "hit daughter, after Icing obliged to keep tLe joora four months wiln a never settled cough, sccompseied by raising of blood, i.iclit sweats, and the attendant symptoms bj Consumption, commenced the use cf the cbcubt rscToSAL, and ahd completely rerovererl." rr.Z REMEDY THAT CUPHS. 1'oKTiAin, lir.., Jan. 10, 1?7. Dr. Ayer: I have been long afflicted wilh Astuxa which crew yearly worse uruil last autumn; it brougl.t ca a ccugli which confined rue in my chamber, and began to assume the alarming symptoms of Consumption, t had tried the best a-lvice sad the best metitciue to uo purpose, until 1 used your CHKHUY ff.tTOKAL, which has cured mc, a&4 ywu may well believe me. Gratefully yours, J. D. PHELPS. If there it any value In the j-itiirment of the ;-ise, who speak from experience, here is a ntcdiciue wciihy of the put lie confidence. ratnazD it i. c. ate., ciitaisr, lowell, kiss. 5old iu Indiauapolis by july24w CKAIGHEAD fe BROWNING, lrugtrita. tilt EAT YlXsETADLE REMEDY!!' DR. H. B. MYERS EXTRACT OT 5AESAPAEILLA. WILD CHEERY AND DANDELION'. or Purifying the Blood All Disnrdert of the Kidneyt. And the cure of every disease trisine from Impure Blood, Inactivity of the absorbents, or disordered Digestion; such aa Bilious Biseascs, Consumption. Bropcirs, Gravel, Scrofula, Ship Fever, Liver Complaints, Feveis, Female Complaints, Summer Complaints, luipctcucy. Dyspepsia, Nervous Affectioi.s. General Debility, cVc. This Extract Is put up in larce bottles containing twenty-fbar ounces. It combines the properties of a lctergn!. Diuretic and Tonie. Curts without puminp, cTipinj or sickeiiinr, ana while it remov.s discfs. cleanses, braces and strengtheus the ss:cni. It is rironger, better and cheaper tl.au any other article iu market a most valuable l.mür medicine, and a certain preventive cf disease, the bad cfeiU of exposure, in.prudthce, or excess. PKKPARED BY DR. II. B. MYF.R, BUFFALO, N. Y. For tvrry disease ichich this Lxlract prafestes to cure, it contains ingredients chosen for their special adaption to its relirf. This valuable rr.fdiclr.al preparation operates at an A Iterativ au J Detergent, a Diuretic and Tcnif; i.d in proper cast tat a Stomachic and emmcnagocue. It east s pain, procures mt, and relieves nervous afTeclions. Generally expressed, it increase ail the secretions and excretions, end excites action iu the tlands in a particular manner. It it no simple or to.min "Extract cf .saisiprill," but a compound a combination cf many of tho most potent vegetable remedial agents to form eacli modifying the elects of the othir, and increasing iu beueßeial tendency, a remedy more powerful end hctlin; iu in actiun cu the human frame, than any cf them separately. iiitircly vece.aLle, and formed with a batis of the best specifics Ssisipaiilla, Wild Cherry and Dandelion it acts viiih the case of the imliist restorative, yet proJüccs results unreached by tho mctt violent remedies. Posscvciiig combined, all the lauded virtues of the trctet cltrnsing medicines, it adds others, cently acting on the Kidneys, or baviur particular reference to tome internal oryan thus at once eradicating the existing discate. cleansing every portion cf the body, and renovating and leäcshing the system. This Extract acts directly and Vindly upon the blocd, which it purifies aiidenricl.es piomotes healthy accre'.'ons, restores digestion, and by Iis et n-ra! influence favors every effort of natuie. It supplies want of vital heat cr nervous eurrry rxpcU nervous diitcasrs ccnrrally, and gives to the invalid laaiing health, virnr and strencih. GhNEUAL DEBILITY AM) ENTIHK PKOSTRATIO.X . Persona wlioso constitutions are broken down, weakened an t debilitated, who have declined in mental and in-rvous powerlist flesh and mttkcular atrtngtu. and whose systems are rtntrally diseased, cannot lind a oetter or more pleasant remedy. Dr. Myers' Ssrsaparilla, Wild Cherry and Danuelion has perlect couliol ovir the most corrupt stales of the blood, even ua that fluid is ettirely vitiated. Tie following certificate It one among many that have been given by citizens in this State. We have been Sellin Dr. Myer'a Farsaparilla, Wild Chcny and Dandelion for several mouths past, and we hesitate not ia saying that we believe it to be the beat article before the public tor any derangement or decay of the system iu whatever form it may appear. We have seen evlraordinary benefits from its use, and would recommend it to the use .f those Uboriuf under ny cf the diseases lor which it is rccominsiided. V. J. ALLlO.N Sc CO., Drug -ltt. Terre Haute, Auiust S, 1KV. Price SI per bottle; cr six bottle for 95. For sate wholesale and retail by CKAIGHEAD & BROWS. ING, Agents, Indianapolis. ue'.'O-w VDMINISTRATOR'S SALE Notice U hereby given that the under. rued, Admuiistrator on the estates of Joint B. A Charles C. Furgeraoir, deceacd, wiil proceed to sell at public auction all the persoiiitl property of snid estates, coufi.-t;ng of one Horse, Cattle, Hops, Corn in Uie liekl. Bees, I'wmiiie; rteiiil. one Wagon, ova Buppy, one Carriage, Household and Kitchen Furniture, Ac., althe-.r lata residence in tlie City of Indianapolis. Sale on Friday, the --M of November next. A credit of twelve months will be piten ou oil sums of three d.i.lar and upwards, by the purchaser giving Ins note with approved secunvy previous to the property beug removed, saul notes wilt be drawn wuhwut relief frvm valuation or appraise ment laws. A'l sums under three dollars to be Caa in hand. Sale to commence ai 10 o'clock, A. .M., on tzii ilav. -i31-3w(w ) IIKN'RT BRADY. ACrn'r. VDMDttSTRATOR'S SALE. The under gned, adminiatrator of the cMitt of Jacob Glazier, ('.creased, in purtumce of ait order of the Marion Isol ate Court, wiil, on Monday, the Uli day of December, A. !., IS50, between tie hours of 10 o'clock, A. M., and 4 o'clock, P. M., in front of the Court-liuuso door, iu tt.e town of IniUuuapo'.is, Marien county, f late of Imljuia, oflcr for sa'e the following tract of laud bclogitig to said eaie. to-w:t: Tha wet half of'the nonh-weat quarter of scel on r 25. iu towusliip No. 15. north of raupe No. 4 t atL The pi t mises will he sold at public vendue, lo the highest l.iddir, at not lea theu. two-Ohuia the appraised value. The purchaser will be required to pay oi t-li.rd of Ih purchase money cnth in band, one-thud in s x months, and cuethira iu twelve months from th day of sale, and to secure the second and third payment by notes with good freehold security, payable with interest from date, without pny relief whatever from valuation w appraisement laws. There is a valuable Tavern stan.L and other valuuhle im;wmenieuu, ttpon the premises, situated about 6 m.le south-west of the town ot lndianpo,,a. upon the Mirhiesn Road. ikw11-4 Cll AKI.L3 .UZIER. A.im'r. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OP WETZEL, COUNTY, IN THE STATE OP VmaiNIA. Fall Tw. I?30. Chr.ery. Jtu.ei Witteu and others. raii;::.2. IVcr Willen and others. Deiciulants. IT appearing to the Court, l y ihe aiT.ilavil of Friind Ox, the Klizitticili Burkhard, rate Scon, some years aro re n roved lo the State of Indiana, and has since died, leaving chiidreu whose tiamee arc unknown: t'.ial Jane Wilson, late Jane ScolL a' so removed soma years apo to the same State, and has since died, leaving a sou whoa name i unknown; that Eleanor Bovren, late Eleanor or Nelly Scott, also removed lo the same State, ai.d has since died, leaving children whose names are unknown; also .Vixiuultr Scott, who removed u the same Slate, who died leaving Ik-in whose names are unkuowu; and al.-o Ihm Sarah Johnson, hue Scoit, removed to Ihe same uua and there died, leaving he.rs u hose ifme are unknown: It is therefore orOered and decreed that publication be made ia some newspaper nt Indianapolis, iu the S:e of luil.ava. for hir sue. cesive weeks, that the naiutiliV bill has len liied m this cause, tha object of winch i to make partition ot a tract of 143 arret of land situated on the Ohio river, in the county of Weird, wlkh said Irert of land descended from Arthur Witten, who died without issue, and without leavinc a mmher, brother, or sisters, or Uieir desceinlom and that the said unknown heir aforesaid appear wnhin the lime aforesaid, and do what is necessary to protect their uite;'s ia ss4 cause. nov2-4w(wi A copy. Test, FRIEND COX, Clert-. DELINQUENT TAXES, TIPTON COUNTY. kJOTlCE is hereby (riven that all lauds ar.4 town lot on whk-V l the taxes of 1:49 shall remain unpaid, will be offered lie hs by the Treasurer of Tipton county, Ind. ana, at the Court-House c5wo in the town of Tipton, on the aril Monday of January, LS2I. or ao much of each tract will be sold as may be nrce-wary to d.scharse the lazes, penalty, and costs due thereon. melndii- the laxes of lr5yfc ALEXANDER M. YOIMG, Clerk end Ex -Officio Aud.tor of TipKm counir. Tipton. Nor. 5. I&50. - noH-4wwl DELINQUENT TAXES OF HANCOCK COUNTY. isjkTOTICE is hereby given that all laisis and lown lots on which ll the taxes of 143 shall remain unpaid, will be offered for. sale by the Treasurer of Hancock couuty, Indiana, at the CourvIIouse door, in the lown of Greenfield, on the ajsl Monday ef January.. 1951. So much of each tract will be sold as may be necessary to. discharge the taxes, penalty, and cost due Hiei-eon. including tha taxes of 150. JL MYERS, A. H. Greenfield- Nov. 9- 1S3- nov7-4w. ADMINISTRATRIX'S NOTICE. Nie is hereby rireBthtt letter of Administration ou the est are of Bauart Raoena, de. ceased, were duly granted aud issued to tb nderatrued by the Prebate Court of Marion eounty, at iu October Term, li-53. The tai4 estsia ia probably salvoO. LYDIA ROBERT s-184-Sw. Administratrix. ADMINISTRATOR'S NOTICE Notice ia hereby riven the. Letjenof Administration on the etittet of John B. Furgmoa aaa Charles C. Furgersoa. deceases!, were duly gi anted and issued e th undersigned bv tlie Probat Court of Marion onuuty at ha Oct-. berTeTD iv6 ' The eaid estate are probably seJveAjr. . oct31-3w(w.) HENRY FRAEY, Adm'r. mj CTTC7E. Will be sold at publie auction en Thursday, 31st da i( o( October, 1S5U, the personal property of Lee Isaac, late of Mario county. Pike township, Indiana, deceased, et the hate residence of said deceased, ccuaiatiuf ia. cattle, lia, sheen, Lr-o. farming atenail. one two-horse wipon, housebci and kitchen furniture, aud many other article too tedioua to mention. A credit of twelve month will be given- n ell tusns ovr-r three eVCara, hy th purchaser giving note with good security comLnoitcd lo be pa id with out any relief whatever from valuation or apprs'sement law. A' turns of three dollar and under cash in hand will be required. Sal lo eomrnswe at 9 o'clock A. M , on te:d dsy, where due auendanc will he rivrn. ' DAVID McCURDY. ecv Jw A4m:c:s'r'Tv