The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-03-21
EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW.


The tendency OF modern legislation TO
entirely do away with the property DIS
abilities Of married women. and place her
as far as the control OF her own property
IS concerned. exactly on an equality with
her husband, has, IL seems. its disadvan-
tages. one Of which IL pointed out In
decision by Judge Gibbons. In the case
o. Groth VS.. Groth. decided In the circuit
court for Cook county, III. In that de-
cision Judge Gibbons vigorously asserted
the somewhat novel doctrine that In an
action for divorce instituted by an I'm
the husband has a perfect right 10 de-
mand and receive aiimony pendente lite,
an allowance from her sufficient TO meet
his necessary expenses OF litigation. and
to support him until the final decision Is
rendered.
Judge Gibbons declares that prior TO
the establishment OF feudaIism married
women might hold and enjoy property:
that this right was simply suspended
under feudal rule. and when that rule
was abolished IL was unjust TO enforce its
consequences as against her" Now that
the statutes have restored her TO her
ancient rights. he thinks there is 10 rea-
son why the court should not now treat
the subject exactly the same as II her
rights had never been suspended. He says:
Every reason OF right. justice and morals
Is In favor OF the proposition that the
xuh hA Rms M M xxrifa
10 each other are reciprocal" and de-
clares that the right OF the wife to claim
alimony pendente lite Is not statute law,
but simply court-made law. He quotes
from Harding We. Harding. IA H.. SIS. on
this point: ITO refuse to allow her rea-
sonabls support pendente lite would in
many cases be 10 deny her the right to
prosecute her suit altogether" Judge
Gibbons says: IF 1t be good law In be-
half Of the wife, why not in behalf OF the
husband7 To use a trite old phrase. What
Ia sauce for the goose Is sauce for the
gander.'"
The New York Law Journal discusses
this case. as well as others In which the
contrary doctrine is announced, and ar
rives at the conclusion that the movement
to secure alimony to husbands Is not a
legitimate and logical. but only a super
fetal outgrowth OF the spirit Of demo-
cratic marital equality.
Its argument is that when an appeal Is
made 10 a court for the exercise OF an
inherent power without direct precedent,
the controlling judicial motive should be
TO discover whether the analogy from
other adjudications relied on is organic
or only apparent; whether the same his
toricsl or fundamental principle which
led 10 the other decisions essentially con-
trolls the case At bar. According to such
test. the right OF husbands to almony
should not be recognized. The real rea-
son for the general rule allowing aIlmony
to wives Is that In the majority OF cases
the husband Ia the money-getter and has
control OF the family funds, and the wife
is dependent upon him for such money
as she receives. He being obliged to sup
port her while their relations are har-
r1onious. II Is only just TO compel him
to continue TO support her after they have
separated for his fault. or. at least. until
the merits OF their quarrel can be finally
aGjudicated. The basis OF the right TO
alimany is presumed absolute necessity.
The legitimate bearing OF the growing
equality as regards property rights be-
tween husband and wife is not TO morally
entitle husbands to slimony. but rather.
IL would seem, 10 lessen the number Of
cases In which alimony should be granted
to wives. Probably the financial depend
encs OF wives upon husbands will con-
tinue indefinitely 70 greater or less ex-
tent. and therefore the feature Of alimony
to wives will very properly also be con-
tinued- But certainly the progress O.
democratic sentiment will not develop
legal Obligations or wives to support their
husbands before separation. and it would
seem anomalous in principle 10 impose
any such obligation after separation.
The fact that applications for alimony
on behalf OF husbands suing for divorce
have actually been made to an extent which
requires the discussion OF the question in
the law journals. AFFORDS a singular COM
uentary upon the remarks made by many
| % the papers in this country upon tho
case Of tie notorious Princess De Chlnnay.
X appeared that the noble spouse o, this
American girl sued her for a divorce after
Ser elopement with a gypsy fiddler, and
In addition 20 getting a divorce. secured
| from the court q decree by the terms Of
which Re remained IN possession OF the
larger portion o, IFS wlte's private for
| tune. The current comment a. TIRE time
/ vas that no American would have con-
| seuted to retain the fortune OF & woman
/ whor - had divorced
/ The decisions referred 20 show that there
are Americans who would do precisely
I this very thing u they could convince TIE
/ courts that the law permitted 0: its being
doue