581.) "'Many jurists,' says Kent, 'are of opinion that the adultery of the husband ought not to be noticed or made subject to the same animadversions as that of the wife, because it is not evidence of such entire depravity nor equally injurious in its effects upon the morals, good order, and happiness of the domestic life.
Montesquieu, Pothier, and Dr.Taylor all insist that the cases of husband and wife ought to be distinguished, and that the violation of the marriage vow, on the part of the wife, is the most mischievous, and the prosecution ought to be confined to the offense on her part.

("Esprit des Lois," tom.

3, 186; "Traite du Contrat de Mariage," No.

516; "Elements of Civil Law," p.

254).' "Say you, 'These are but the opinions of men'?
On what else, I ask, are the hundreds of women depending, who, this hour, demand in our courts a release from burdensome contracts?
Are not these delicate matters left wholly to the discretion of courts?
Are not young women from the first families dragged into our courts,--into assemblies of men exclusively,--the judges all men, the jurors all men?
No true woman there to shield them, by her presence, from gross and impertinent questionings, to pity their misfortunes, or to protest against their wrongs?
"The administration of justice depends far more on the opinions of eminent jurists than on law alone, for law is powerless when at variance with public sentiment.
"Do not the above citations clearly prove inequality?
Are not the very letter and spirit of the marriage contract based on the idea of the supremacy of man as the keeper of woman's virtue--her sole protector and support?
Out of marriage, woman asks nothing, at this hour, but the elective franchise.