Mr. MORRILL. The only difference there is in the world between this bill and the principles of the common law in this respect is, that by the principles of the common law he was a tenant by courtesy, and here there is no courtesy about it. The wife has the right, if she chooses, to confer upon him the management or the possession of the property; otherwise not. In our country the result has been just this: here are the rights of the wife they are never resorted to except in an extreme case, except in the case of a profligate husband or something of that sort but here is the right secured; and it has operated beneficently. I submit that although this section violates the principles of the common law, it is not in vioation of right. The 6th section provides that the husband and wife by a marriage settlement executed in the Presence of 2 witnesses before marriage may determine what rights each shall have in the other's estate. My honorable friend will know better than I; but I believe that is in har mony with the principles of the common law. I believe, on certain terms, conditions, and lim itations, and for certain considerations, a mar riage settlement may be made which secures rights in property. This section is rather in affirmation, perhaps, than in derogation of the principles of the common law. The 7th section provides that when the husband abandons his wife and leaves the DistCol, without making sufficient provision for her maintenance, or is confined in the penitentiary, then she may act as his legal agent and administrator upon property. In case of his disability by absence, or in case of disability, which more often occurs, by forfeiture of his civil rights for the time being for crime, the wife is to be his legal rePresentative, and may administer the property till his return. That is not exactly in derogation of the principles of the common law; but I suggest that it does not occur to me that any injury can result from such a provision. The 8th section provides that all contracts lawfully made by the wife in such cases shall be o: upon her and her husband. This is simply in continuation of the power given in the 7th section by which she is constituted his legal agent. Now, Mr. President, those are the general features of the bill. To repeat, they provide, in the 1st place, that the rights of property which the married woman possesses in her own right, independent of her husband, shall remain to her. If she chooses to confer the possession of these rights or the management of them upon her husband, or convey them to him absolutely outright, she may do it. further, the bill provides that she may enter the courts for the defense and protection of her property; and then as regards limitation as to the descent of the property, I do not understand that it changes the principles of the common law on that subject. The property fo. to her heirs by this bill; and so it would, believe, by the principles of the common law, The only change in this respect is that under this bill the husband is not a tenant by courtesy. These are the essential features of the bill. They are common to very many of the States; I cannot say how many. The bill as it was introduced originally I thought a little crude, and I Presented it to the Senate in a new draft. I will say to the honorable Senator that the provisions of this bill I found in the statutes of my own State and those of Massachusetts.