third ▁of ▁the ▁household ▁goods ▁and ▁land ▁in ▁the ▁event ▁of ▁death ▁of ▁the ▁husband . ▁ ▁There ▁were ▁arguments ▁both ▁for ▁and ▁against ▁this ▁provision . ▁A ▁delegate ▁recently ▁arrived ▁from ▁New ▁York ▁war ned ▁against ▁grant ing ▁women ▁separate ▁property ▁rights , ▁based ▁on ▁his ▁experiences ▁in ▁France . ▁There , ▁he ▁argued , ▁such ▁rights ▁promote ▁" the ▁spect acle ▁of ▁domestic ▁dis union .... ▁There ▁the ▁husband ▁and ▁wife ▁are ▁partners ▁in ▁business , ▁raising ▁the ▁wife ▁from ▁head ▁cl erk ▁to ▁partner . ▁The ▁very ▁principle ▁is ▁contrary ▁to ▁nature ▁and ▁contrary ▁to ▁the ▁married ▁state ." ▁One ▁delegate ▁who ▁supported ▁the ▁provision ▁declared , ▁" We ▁are ▁told , ▁Mr . ▁Chair man , ▁that ▁woman ▁is ▁a ▁fra il ▁being ; ▁that ▁she ▁is ▁formed ▁by ▁nature ▁to ▁obey , ▁and ▁ought ▁to ▁be ▁protected ▁by ▁her ▁husband , ▁who ▁is ▁her ▁natural ▁prote ctor . ▁That ▁is ▁true , ▁sir ; ▁but ▁is ▁there ▁any ▁thing ▁in ▁all ▁this ▁to ▁imp air ▁her ▁right ▁of ▁property ▁which ▁she ▁possessed ▁previous ▁to ▁entering ▁into ▁the ▁marriage ▁contract ? ▁ ▁I ▁cont end ▁not ." ▁Another ▁argued ▁that ▁it ▁would ▁emp ower ▁women ▁and ▁attract ▁them ▁to ▁the ▁state , ▁where ▁marriage able ▁Ang lo - American ▁women ▁were ▁scar ce : ▁" H aving ▁some ▁hopes ▁that ▁I ▁may ▁be ▁wed ded ... I ▁shall ▁advoc ate ▁this ▁section ▁in ▁the ▁Constitution , ▁and ▁I ▁will ▁call ▁upon ▁all ▁the ▁b ach el ors ▁in ▁this