The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1901-07-28

PROPRIETORsHIP OF THE POCKET.


PROPRIETORSHIP OF THE POCKET.
Magistrate Crane of a New York po-
lice court has precipitated a discus
sion of the proprietorship and ethics of
the pocket and its contents, as regards
husband and wife, by ruling that mo
woman has a right to go through her
husbands pockets" The ruling, how
ever, was somewhat weakened by the
addition, "any more than a man has to
so through his wifes pockets" The
learned magistrate evidently under
stands that the man must keep his
hands out of his wife's pocket, even If
he can find it,; therefore his judicial
mind reaches the conclusion that what
is sauce for the goose must be sauce
for the gander. also; that if the man
must keep his hands out, so must the
woman.
The law, like the language, grows up
from usage and necessity. Custom Of
ten makes law, written or unwritten.
When civilization, which is largely a
matter of pockets. first took
began to hang rawhide pouches
about their loins in which to
store away their valuables. Then, no
doubt. the wife of the family began
the practice of investigating the con-
tents of her lords pocket while yet he
slumbered. And the custom has come
down TO the present day, notwith-
g ha In
from one to anywhere from twenty to
thirty in the masculine outfit of gar
ments, according to the owners degree
of civilization and prosperity. And the
masculine pocket usually has some
thing in it. On the other hand, the
feminine pocket, the deft hiding of
which is better protection to it that a
combination lock would be. is apt to be
in the condition described in the lines
of the immortal poet:
Lucy Locket lost her pocket,
Polly Pitcher found it;
Nothing in it. nothing in it,
But the binding round it.
That. at least, was the condition long
ago when civilized man was forming
his habits. There was no incentive
to an exploration of his wifes pocket,
hence man kept out. And having
never formed the habit, Magistrate
Crane now holds that man has no right
to put his hand in, and that women
have no rights in law above those of
men.
There is another side to the question,
hnWpxrnr IL fe-
torney of Philadelphia He adheres to
the theory that what's his'n s her'n,
and what's her'n S his'n;" that the
pocket in all instances, whether it nes-
ties securely in the labyrinthine folds
of skirt or obtrudes itself upon the
trousers, a standing invitation to ex-
ploration, is mutual property, with
all that it may contain. With all my
worldly goods 1 thee endow,' he says,
applies to pockets as we'll as other
classes of property-which may hold
good, provided the pockets are in reach
and the party to whom they especially
apply is sound asleep. This must have
been in the minds of the trainers of
the law, since a man is not a compe-
tent witness to testify against his wife,
in such pocket transactions. Each
party must be his or her own protec-
tor and guardian in such cases. If the
wife gets the money, the case is hope
less. If the husband gets it, the wife's
best method of procedure is to cry,
and make him shell out twice the
amount to make good.
But what's the use of discussing the
legal phase of the matter, after all?
No law that could be enacted would
reach the marital pocket. 1t must
continue to be governed. as in the past,
by the parties to the contract and the
financial circumstances of the pocket
4