Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1909-11-16
LIBERAL OR LITTLE ALIMONY ?
ATLANTA VERSUS LOUISVILLE.

ATLANTA VERSUS LOUISVILLE.
Different views seem to prevail in
Georgia and in the West as what eff
feet the granting of liberal alimony
has upon the divorce situation.
Up in Atlanta, the other day, the
Judge of the Superior Court, in dis
cussing the alarming increase in di-
vorce cases coming before him stated
that close study had convinced him
that many of the cases were brought
by women largely for the purpose of
securing alimony. They were dissatis-
fed with their home lives, unwilling
to meet the responsibilities that the
martial state brought, unwilling to do
the household work, to bear the chill
dren, and otherwise meet the obliga-
lions and duties that are incurred
through the marriage relations. If. by
legally breaking the ties, they can sep
arate themselves from the irksome or
unpleasant side of married life and at
the same time retain a comfortable in
come they are only too eager to avail
themselves of the opportunity the di-
vorce laws afford. The Atlanta Judge
stated that he had accordingly de-
termined hereafter, except where con-
dittons indicated gross immortality or
absolute cruelty on the part of the
husband, to make very moderate ALI
mony allowance to the Divorce. Mar
ried women, in other words, will not
be permitted to make use of that par
ticular court to divest themselves of
the responsibilities of married life
and at the same time continue to en-
joy liberal, or at least comfortable.
support from their former husbands.
This is one view of the divorce sit
uation. But it is entirely the reverse
of the view that western Judge takes.
Out in Louisville-shall we call Ken
lucky Western or Southern state?
1.-The Court of Appeals has just hand
ed down decision that, if it had come
from the same court in Georgia, might
be regarded as an effectual reply to
the structures of the Atlanta Judge on
the tendency women are developing
toward an easy life at an old mates
expense. In the Kentucky instance the
lower court, perhaps governed by a
somewhat similar view to that pre-
yailing in the Atlanta court, had
granted a meagre allowance to a di-
yorced woman. She resented the in
adequate provision for her mainten-
ance and carried the case to the upper
court. There her position has been
sustained and it has been held that the
divorced woman has right to as lib
eral financial salye as her husbands
monetary condition permits. The
Kentucy Court of Appeals had this to
say in its opinion:
THE dependent condition of the
wife, the helplessness and just needs
of the child Cf there should be one) =,
both imposing legal and moral obliga-
lions upon the husband and father, not
discharged by divorce and not dimin-
ished by his abandonment, or want of
affection, are elements which enter in
to the Courts consideration in fixing
the amount of alimony.
mot only what the husband had
when the action was begun, but what
he has now, and his responsible ex-
pectancy and his earning capacity may
also be considered, and should be, in
aseertaining the just amount neces-
Sary to maintain the wife and child
comfortably and to educate the child
fittingly, and the probable ability of
the husband 90 pay the amount.
This is exacted of the husband not
as punishment or penalty alone for
his fault, though that may also be con-
Sidered, but is in discharge of his
contractural and more particularly his
social obligation imposed upon him by
law as an incident of manhood and the
head of a family
Women generally will coincide in
this opinion, while at the bar of male
judgment there will be hearty ap-
proval of the Atlanta view. If the
Atlanta judge insists on standing his
ground expectant Divorces in the
Gate City will probably find it to their
advantage to remove their legal resi-
dences to Louisville.
1893