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.)

It may be said that to refuse to indorse would retard trade. Let it be
retarded, then; for why should the capitalist have two chances to the
trader's one? If the man trusted is unsuccessful, why, to enrich the
capitalist who loans his money for his own gain, should an innocent
family be impoverished, who reaped no benefit, and were expected to reap
no benefit, from the transaction? How many families have thus been