Speech of Marshall M. Strong, February 5, 1847

              242 WISCONSIN HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
could never be changed. StiU others, that the legislature will have the same control over the subject, with the limitation as to the quantity and value of real estate that they had before. Should the judge's opinion be correct, then not a bed, not an article of wearing apparel, or any other personal property would be exempt from execution. But I am the more inchned to think, especially since we are to have an elective judiciary, that the latter opinion will prevail and that this section will be only the first step to future and still greater exemptions. Adopt this constitution, and future legislatures becoming still more and more progressive will boldly carry out the principles too plainly shadowed forth in these pro¬ visions until eventually we shall arrive at the limit of all progress.
The real estate exempted by this section may be owned by a male or female, a married or an unmarried person. Where the wife has a separate property, can the husband and wife each have one thousand dollars worth of real estate exempt? Where a married man owns only forty acres or a village lot worth less than one thou¬ sand dollars and owes no debts and does not wish it to be exempt, can he alienate it without the consent of his wife? Suppose ore owning real estate exempt should exchange it for other real estate, and there should be a judgment against him at the time. Would not the tract last acquired be subject to the judgment, as the debtor could not have two selections at the same time? Or suppose he should sell it for any other property. Would not that property be liable for his debts?
The avowed object of this section is to protect the wife and children. When the husband dies, it is made the duty of the judge of probate by law to sell his real estate to pay his debts, if there is not personal property sufficient for that purpose. Thus the wife and children will be protected while the husband is alive to support them, but the moment he dies and they are left helpless, the prop¬ erty before exempt will be sold to pay his debts.
Those who support this section must assume two principles to be correct: First, that man is unable to take care of himself, and it is necessary that the law should protect him; and second, that woman is more capable of managing pecuniary matters than man, or even the constitution, for it protects the property of the husband until she says to the contrary. She has a supervisory power all the while and can veto her husband's arrangements or not as she deems most advisable. Why should not the same principle extend to articles of personal property which are exempt, and the statutes be changed accordingly?    Suppose some mechanic, having his aU of fortune