The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-11-02
ghe ay Eagle Tuesday or1ing guuember 2 1897

sure permitting the husband 20 inter
fere arbitrarily and depotically with his
wife's private correspondence, against
her consent and IN the absence OF prop
er grounds, merely for the sake OF graf
flying an insulting suspiciousness and
curiosity, yet the authority inherent in
him undoubtedly does give him the
right to intercept confidential letters
written by or to his wife in cases where
there are serious grounds for resortins
70 this method in the interest or his
wifes morals as well as the honor and
purity OF the family"
In practice the limitation here indi-
Gated amounts to nothing. To say that
a husband may interfere only when ne
has just grounds, withou: saying who
shall define Just grounds, is TO make
the husband himself the judge OF his
own actions. The law cannot undertake
TO lay down hard and fast rules on the
subject. and the husband can easily.
and perhaps quite sincerely, allege that
he has acted upon what he regarded as
serious and just grounds; that not mere
curiosity or unreasonable Jealousy
prompted his interference, but the ne
cessity OF safeguarding the honor ana
reputation OF his family. The Belgian
court admonishes the husband 60 exer-
else his right over his wife's cores
pondence with suitable tact and dis
cernment, but, Of course, no definition
OF tact is attempted, and the moral IN
junction of the court is worth very little
as a protection for the privacy ana
rights OF a wife.
1t is reasons BILE TO say that in Ger
many. wnere woman has made no ad-
vance at all toward independence, the
right OF the husband over his wife's cor
respondence is unquestioned. In Rus
STA women have gained considerable free
dom and recognition. but no case mas
ever arisen on the subject OF wifely cor
respondence until lately. SO that the law
is silent. The jurists. however, lean To-
ward the French doctrine. One or the
boldest Of them says in a recent treat
Use: "At the risk Of being considerei II
logical, we cannot deny the husband the
right 10 intercept and examine ms wire
letters. this being a means OF compelling
respect 10 his authority. II we are 10
preserve this authority. we cannot ever
SOD short OF allowing him TO open ana
read purely professional and business
correspondence, if his wife is physi-
clan. midwife, teacher, and so on. This
last conclusion is one which even the
French have hesitated 10 draw, but u
is clearly nothing more than coroliary
from the rule itself.
Some European writers are CONSIDER
ing the alternatives TO the present lesai
theory If equality is to be INSISTED up
on with regarj to correspondence shaii
IL mean the equal right of the WE 10
omen and read her husbands letters
This would make marriage mtolersole.
and instead of promoting the unity
of the relationship would tend TO de-
stroy it by breeding conflict. friction
and distrust. More is involved tnan
the rights OF the immediate parties Iol
this indiscriminate opening OF letters
might reveal the secrets and confidential
communications of third parties Inc
law safeguards the rights OF these, al
anv rate. and therefore the solution OF
the problem must be a different one
Only the boldly progressive writer's mint
at the possibility Of adopting the An
glo-American rule Of private property III
letters. This presupposes equality ana
individuality in marriage, and not hctl-
tons unity" whic1 means that the nus
hand is the lone" and the wife's per-
conality merged in his. That independ-
ence destroys the family and marriage
is a notion which the morals, standards
and actual conditions Of England and
America triumphantly refute. There can
be no doubt OF the ultimate acceptance
OF the Anglo-American doctrine. winch
shocks European jurists as revolution
a w and nerniciOus.