The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-11-02


ing, crusted, scaIy skin and scalp hunors,
with loss Of hair, when all else fails.
| ssd thrvushouttAs world. forrHR DEue ASp CzEN.
Cor Is,. rV r. i Sc T.s.ur.d B.b..e.
SKIN SCALP 'ns su H.ai s;:' Ssh By
moral status Of NJ Proudhan. the great
French radical. who contended that wo-
man is an inferior being, occupying a
! position between men and the lower ami
mails. Nine. then new figure in lbrea-
| ture, scored a great success by her witty
and crushing pamphlet, and her hus-
! band, agains her consent, and without
| her knowledge, actually brought out a
number of editions Of this successful
book, with his own name as the author
| on the tide page. The French law per-
mitted this. and he-separated from his
| wife-insisted on taking advantage OF
his legal rights. His wife's property
was his, and everything which she
might write and which had a market
value he could appropriate and call his
own. Even her name could be Oblitera-
| ted from the work.
This impossible law has not been
modified, according TO Nine Adam.
What wonder then, that the French
hold that the wife has no RICH; TO pri-
vate correspondence. that her letters are
the property of her husband? The
French jufists applauds this view, one
Of them reasoning as follows: as not
marriage an indivisible uraion OF souls?
What reason or motive. then, can a
wife have for refusing her husband the
inspection Of her correspondence? What
reason, that Is Of an honest and avow-
able character? Another French
jurist earnestly declares that the Ameri-
can doctrine denies the authority and
destroys the foundation of unity in the
family
THE UNITY" THEORY.
OF course, the unity theory is not
quite seh-consistent and satisfactory.
To say. as the European laws and deci-
sions imply. that a wife may not de-
mand the rights Of privacy in correspon-
dence because she and her husband are
made one by marriage. is to state but
half Of the logical conclusion. What
about the wife's right 10 the husbands
correspondence? What becomes Of the
unity" theory If the husband is permit
ted 10 withhold his correspondence from
his wife? Yet in a case decided in the
courts Of Paris, some years ago it was
held that the wife has no right 10 de-
mand that her husband shall allow her
20 examine his letters 10 or from third
persons; that the intercepting by her OF
his letter is strictly forbidden: that she
may not profit by an accident or favor
able circumstance to examine his cor
respondence. Nay, more, IL the hus-
band carele.sly leaves his letters on the
table the wife has no right to read them
even If they are open; if she violates her
duty an breads them, she may not take
possession Of them and use them for any
purpose whatever, even if they contain
the clearest evidence of the husbands
infidelity and breach of marital duties
that u.s. evidence OF the absolute de-
struction Of that very unity in whose
name the wife is prohibited from having
private correspondence OF her own. In
other words, the Paris courts recognize
the right OF the husband 10 resort TO
every possible means of concealing his
infidelity and suppressng proof Of it,
and they do not permit the wife TO use
such evidence as falls into her hands
through violation Of her husbands sac
red right" OF private correspondence. On
the other hand, the husband may en-
ploy force and deception and treachery
TO obtain possession of his wife's letters.
and such evidence OF infidelty as ne
finds against her he may use as a basis
Of legal proceedings.
AS letters often figure very promi-
nently in separation and divorce cases,
the peculiar French doctrine has given
rise to many practical questions. Only
two quaiificst atoms of the rule has been
introduced. A Lyons court decided that
a wife might uae as evidence in divorce
proceedings letters written by her hus-
band to his mistress, provided the latter
voluntarily surrendered the letters 10 the
wife. This rests on the principle that
me letters addressed to the mistress
were her private property and therefore
she was ae liberty TO turn them over to
the wife. In Paris case the court
rather naiveIy and innocently declared
that wife might use such letters OF her
husband as fall into her hands sans
aucune arttffce coupable" (wiClout any
culpa5l srtihce)-as, for example. wnen
the husband authorizes ner 10 open his
letters or arrange his letter file. 1t is
safe 10 say that few French husbands.
having anything 70 conceal, viii CON-
mic such an indiscretion-
HUSBANDS RIGHTS.
The fragrant inequality thus estsblis- J
he'd between husband and wife is not |
overlooked by French legal writer's. buc |
they Try 10 justify or excuse il by say
ing that il is the direct consequence Of !
certain fundamental rights vested in |
the husband by the marriage relation. |
II is not the only burden, they add By 1
way OF consolation. which wives are r. l
CURED 70 support,
In Belgium the courts have revol.ed /
against this bold and frank recognition |
OF inequality in unity" and nave tried /
- qualify Il some what. In one Of their /
decisions on the point in question they /
as follows; IN order tnat the /
husband might fulfill the mission de-
yoiving upon him in the marriage rsla-
ton ne should ee possessed o. ne rizat.
as he is Of the duty. % exercising vigil
liant control, within certain JUS limits. /
over the scfions OF MS wife % save ls-
from her own errors AMI misSIeps u