of divorce, or
merely to mine.

Mr. PHILLIPS: To both.

Mrs. BLACKWELL: I wish simply to say, that I did not come to the
Convention proposing to speak on this subject, but on another;
but finding that these resolutions were to be introduced, and
believing the subject legitimate; I said, "I will take my own
position." So I prepared the resolutions, as they enabled me at
the moment better to express my thought than I could do by merely
extemporizing.

Now does this question grow legitimately out of the great
question of woman's equality? The world says, marriage is not an
alliance between equals in human rights. My whole argument was
based on the position that it is. If this question is not
legitimate, what is? Then do we not ask for laws which are not
equal between man and woman? What have we been doing here in New
York State? I spent three months asking the State to allow the
drunkard's wife her own earnings. Do I believe that the wife
ought to take her own earnings, as her own earnings? No; I do not
believe it. I believe that in a true marriage, the husband and
wife earn for the family, and that the property is the
family's--belongs jointly to the husband and wife. But if the law
says that the property is the husband's, if it says that he may
take the wages of his wife, just as the master does those of the
slave, and she has no right to them, we must seek a temporary
redress. We must take the first step, by compelling legislators,
who will not look at great principles, to protect the wife of the
drunkard, by giving her her own earnings to expend upon herself
and her children, and not allow them to be wasted by the husband.
I say that it is legitimate for us to ask for a law which we
believe is merely a temporary expedient, not based upon the great
principle of human and marriage equality. Just so with this
question of marriage. It must come upon this platform, for at
present it is a relation which legally and socially bears
unequally upon woman. We must have temporary redress for the
wife. The whole subject must be incidentally opened for
discussion. The only question is one of present fitness. Was it
best, under all the circumstances, to introduce it now? I have
not taken the responsibility of answering in the affirmative.