There is a certain class of women, however, who as a rule are likely to become fretful and ill-tempered as they grow in years:  girls who are allowed to grow up with uninformed judgments, who are taught that the chief end and aim of woman is to captivate and please the opposite sex, who are taught to think a pretty face and delicate figure of more importance than good sense or a thorough education.  And yet it is a fact worthy of notice, that those who most eloquently assert their great superiority over the entire sex, are the very men most easily led—­ay, and duped—­by dressy, frivolous, brainless women.  It would be a misfortune, scarcely to be endured, for such men to have wives who know too much.

That there should be a head to every family, is self-evident.  A man and his wife, according to Scripture, should be one; and the corporate head is best qualified to govern a family, or manage an estate in which both have a common interest, and therefore ought to have an equal voice.  What one lacks, the other may have.  The man may be overconfident, the woman too cautious; by counseling together, a proper and safe medium is arrived at.

One-half of the property in the matrimonial firm should always be regarded as belonging to the wife.  And if a man and his wife fail to agree as to the advantage, or even safety, of a proposed scheme, and he is still determined to act upon his own judgment, contrary to that of his wife, he should never, in such case, risk more than one-half of the property.

What right has a man, except that “might makes right,” to hazard all he has in wild speculations, or by indorsing for some friend or boon companion, despite his wife’s expostulations, or without her knowledge?  Yet it is done every day, and all lost; and if women who see their children and themselves thus reduced to poverty, complain, they are stigmatized as fretful, unwomanly grumblers.  Their husbands, says the world, had a right to do as they pleased with the property in their possession.  What if the wife had earned or inherited half, or even the whole, of it! what should women know about business?

In indorsing, especially, a man should be restrained by law, under pains and penalties, from indorsing to amounts exceeding one-half of his property; and no indorsement in excess of that amount should be allowed to constitute a legal claim.

But is it really right to indorse for any one, under any circumstances?  Why should a third party encumber his estate, and run the risk of ruining himself and his family, to secure the payment of a debt in which he has no personal interest, simply to make a capitalist secure in the investing of his funds, or in the profitable disposal of his property on credit?  If the lender can not trust the party who deals directly with him, let there be no credit.  It is manifestly a departure from the line of duty for a man to jeopard the means of maintenance for his family, without any prospect of advantage to himself or them.  It is as much a great moral wrong for a man to rob his wife and children as it is to rob strangers, although commercial usage and the laws of mankind may declare the reverse.  “He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it:  and he that hateth suretyship is sure.” (Proverbs xi, 15.)