|
Right of Habeas Corput Matilda Joslyn Gage
Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage in her trenchant argument on the right of Habeas Corpus, at the Protest meeting, July 4, in Philadelphia, said: - "The protection of the writ of Habeas corpus is denied married women in every State of this Union, notwithstanding the Constitution of the United States declares it shall not be suspended except when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety demands it. During our late war, although the public safety demanded its suspension in certain cases, this suspension was opposed throughout the length and breadth of the land, as an invasion of the liberties of the people. Yet the newspapers, so vigorous in their objection to its necessary suspension during the war, have never protested against its illegal, unjust and unconstitutional suspension in case of married women, who have been denied this Constitutional guarantee of freedom in every State for the hundred years our country has been in existence. Unjust imprisonment belongs to the barbaric age of force, and has been the first thing against which people have rebelled in their efforts for freedom. Runnymede was a protest against such unjust exercise of power. The horrors of the French Revolution were largely brought on by the unlimited exercise of this power by the king and the nobility. |
Personal liberty stands first in order of all rights. Without the control of one's own person, liberty of conscience is impossible. Without the control of one's own person, education is impossible; mental growth is impossible; without the control of one's own person, the opportunities of the world, which are only means of development, cannot be used. The value and right of personal freedom were recognized when our government was framed.
But the laws of every State in the Union, in defiance of the writ of habeas corpus - that constitutional guarantee of personal freedom - place the personal liberty of the wife entirely in the control and power of her husband, who can imprison her, and this without requiring any legal process whatsoever. The uncontrolled will of the husband is permitted to overpower the wife's constitutional right to freedom and the protection of the law.
The newspapers of every State in the Union are disgraced by advertisements of fugitive wives, reminding one of the fugitive slave advertisements which filled the papers a few years ago. Notices like this are frequently seen: "Whereas, my wife, _________ has left my bed and board, I hereby forbid all persons harboring or trusting her on my account, for I shall hereafter pay no debts of her contracting." The wife, first denied the right to her own earnings in the married firm, is then denied the right of sustenance if she leaves his home. All persons are forbidden to harbor or trust her - those who do aid her rendering themselves liable to prosecution, while if by any stratagem or deceit the husband can bring her again into his power, he has the legal right to imprison her at his will, or until, in the language of the law, "she returns to her duty."
This setting of State laws above the guarantees of the National Constitution is one of the forms of 'State Rights' which has already wrought so much evil to the country. Unless the United States is held as superior to States, we have no nation; we are merely a confederation of States, and the south was justified in taking the course she did. The rights of personal liberty, personal security, were recognized when the government was framed, but during the hundred years of the nation's existence it has been false - in case of one-half of its citizens - to its own principles. Its theory and its practice have been totally unlike, and unless it becomes true to itself - unless the rights of self-government and personal liberty are secured to women - unless the nation becomes a republic in reality as well as in name, it is only preparing for its own downfall.