The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-05-23
SOAPS DIETARY STANDING.
New Jersey Law Proceedings OF .
Novel and Interesting Kind.

NVNgh nuu Us
New Jersey matrimonial infelicitics
as revealed by cen our pro-
ceedings seem to have largely hinged
on culinary controversies. The cases
of MIR. and Mrs. Ernest Russell Rog-
ers and Mr.. and Mrs. William Maidt
are in point.
Mrs. Rogers sets up as a defence
10 her husbands suit for divorce that
he fatty refused to serve roast tur-
key on the very first New Years
Eve after their marriage. Mr.. Rogers
counters with the allegation that his
wife deluged his midst with kidney
stew. and he cites no less than three
Instances Of kidney stew assaults on
his insides within a single week. He
does not allege any personal aversion
to kidney stew as such. What he OBJ
jects to apparently v being drenched,
submerged. drowned in kidney stew.
This case being still before the court,
presided rel by Vice-Chancellor Ste
vens, the prophecies permit nothing
further than this bare statement OF
facts alleged.
The fried soap litigation between
Mr.. and Mrs. Maldt. having been tenn
porarily at least put ~ OF court by
Recorder Medina, is more open TO
discussion. Mr.. Maidt appeared before
the learned Recorder accompanied by
several fapJacks and two pork chops.
These, he averred. had been cooked for
his consumption By Mrs. Maidt and
had been cooked by her IN soap. Mrs.
Maidt sets up in answer that Mr..
Ma!dt nailed down the dining table
n chairs to the fioor and committed
other acts indicative OF a frantic and
tumu!tuous state Of mind. Whether
II Will be urged n Mr.. Maidt's behalf
hat d man with a case OF soap diet
dyspepsia comes within the purview
OF Indulgence accorded 10 ora,nstorm
sufferers Is Of course for learned
counsel to determine. Mr.. Maldt HIM
self makes 40 such plea. He takes
his stand ~square.y on the fiapjack-
pork chop exhibit and there rests.
With all submission we venture the
suggestion that. Notwithstanding this
TODD exhibit. Mr.. Maidts complaint
is deficient in specification. o: course
there Is soap n soap. What kind
OF soap did Mrs. Maidt use IN her
cooking? This Mr.. Maidt wholly fails
to Indicate. For all the record reveals,
It may have been any one OF the
| infinite varieties in the wide range
from the daintily perfumed creations
OF Partisan soap studios TO the plain
but efficient soft soap made by the
hands of our hardy pioneer grand
mothers. IL Mr.. Maidt puts himself
on record as Directing to food cooked
in good American home made soft
soap. an enlightened jury OF Jersey
agriculturists is entitled 10 know the
fact. IL his objection is to French
kickshaws in soap cookery, that too
should be made clear.
1t would be yellow to attempt 10
prejudice Mr.. Maidt's case by any APP
peal to American soft soap sentiment
To be sure the domestic manufacture
OF soft oar may stir tender remi-
~niscenCes in the American mind. The
finished product is still in more OF
less extensive use in tho remotei
parts of the country. Its use. wholly
in the literal and MOI in the fSurativs
sense. Is felt BY political campaigners
in these regions TO be a distinct fore.
in bringing them into close touch
with the plain people. Mr., Bryan. In
his brusque, hearty way. always asked
for II when he went to the tin wash
basin on the bench by the back door
Of the farmhouse where he happened
10 lodge on his political ours. Thu
more a Mr.. Fairbanks under sim.
liar circumstances would deprecatingly
turn his back on the effete yellow bal
OF modern laundry soap and gently
express his preference FOR the sof'
soap Of the masses.