Thursday, August 23, 2012

Philip Chain Pickets for Father’s Rights in 1952



Philip Chain is the earliest known example of a father who used picketing to attract attention to his plight as a parent who had been denied access to his child by a malicious mother. It was not until the 1970s that fathers’ rights groups were formed and started doing group pickets, usually in front of courthouses. Chain, however, took his signs to his own home which he was legally barred from. Gender ideologues have for decades claimed fathers only try to “see” their children (as if “seeing” were enough) in order to manipulate the “intrinsic victim of patriarchy,” the mother. The true history of child custody proves otherwise. Despite the fashionable social constructivist theories that are dogmatically spewed and sold by professors, claiming that the further back in history we go the less parents (of both sexes) loved their children, history is on the contrary rich with tales of fathers who made great sacrifices to try to retrieve children that ex’s, the courts and other entities.  A particularly poignant example is that of John McCray.

***

PHOTO CAPTION (Article 1 of 4):

PLEADS TO SEE CHILD – Policeman talks with Philip Chain, 38, who is picketing his former wife in Hollywood, Cal., with a sign pleading he be permitted to see the couple’s child, Darlene, 3.  He told police their divorce decree gave him visiting rights, but the former wife, Esther, refused to let him see Darlene, saying the girl is sick. Police said the picketing broke no law.

[“Pleads To See Child,” syndicated (AP), The Chillicothe Constitution-Tribune (Mo.), Nov. 5, 1952, p. 5]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 4): “Esther please let me see my baby.”

Carrying a placard on which these words were printed, Philip Chain, 38, of 3200 San Fernando Blvd., Burbank, yesterday walked back and forth in the 800 block of N. Edinburgh St. His wife lives in the neighborhood.

Chain alleged that his former wife, Esther, 30 refused to allow him to see the couple’s baby Darlene, 3, telling him the youngster was ill.

Chain said that he and his wife were married on June 20, 1948, separated last January and that she had obtained an interlocutory decree in September. He said that he was granted weekly visiting privileges by the court.

Mrs. Chain could not be reached for a statement.

Police called to the scene tried to discourage Chain from his picketing but he refused. Officers allowed him to continue, saying he was breaking no law.

[“Man pickets in Plea to See Child,” Los Angeles Times (CA.), Nov. 3, 1952, part 2, p. 1]

***



PHOTO CAPTION (Article 3 of 4):

PICKETS FOR PATER RIGHTS — For the second time since being divorced in 1952, Philip Chain, 38, above, picketed the Los Angeles home of his former wife, Mrs. Esther Critichfield Chain, because she was not at home when he came to visit their 4-year-old daughter, Darlene. According to a court order, Mr. Chain explains, he can visit the child on Sundays and holidays, but this Sunday when he arrived there was a sign on the door reading “Not at home,” so he put up the placards and started picketing the house.

[“Pickets For Pater Rights,” syndicated (NEA), The Sandusky Register-News (Oh.), Dec. 23, 1953, p. 7]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 4 of 4): Philip Chain, 38, who charges that his ex-wife will not permit him to see their daughter, Darlene, 4, was back “picketing” yesterday in front of 853 N. Edinburgh Ave.

He said he came to the house to take the youngster out to dinner but was greeted by a “Not at Home” sign on the front door. His former wife, Esther, 31, had taken the child away to a party, he learned.

Her refusal to allow the child to visit her father from 1 to 6 p. m. on Sundays and holidays is a violation of the court order, Chain said, which granted Mrs. Chain said, an interlocutory degree in September, 1952, and granted him visiting privileges. [sic: a privilege, not a right!]

~ Fifth Refusal ~ 

“This is the fifth time she has refused to let me see my daughter,” Chain said. “The last time I saw her she said unless I paid $13 a week support for the girl I couldn’t see Darlene.”

He explained that he is out of work now and has not been able to pay that amount. He lives with his parents at 2426-A N. Buena Vista St., Burbank.

Legends on the signs he exhibited and some which he taped to window screens of the Edinburgh house read:

“Waiting to see my baby”; “Why can’t a father see his child?” and “I plead for justice.”

The Chains were married on June 20, 1948, and were separated in January, 1952. He said their divorce was not yet final.

[“Man Pickets Ex-Wife; Wants to See Daughter – ‘I Plead for Justice,’ Reads One Legend as Husband Resumes His Sidewalk Parade,” Los Angeles Time (Ca.), Dec. 21, 1953, part 3, p. 4]

***


***


***



Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Poster Clip-art

  
This collection has attracted the attention of one of the most respected bloggers in the politically correct vein of blogging, at Man Breasts:

Said blog does not offer an entirely positive assessment of our efforts, but that is not necessarily such a bad thing. After all, mot of the factual material collected in the 700+ posts on The Unknown History of MISANDRY is completely unknown to the public nowadays. I would have preferred that the Sigurd Hoeberth design be featured on Man Breasts rather than the ironic one chosen, but heck, 1926, the year the first formal Men’s Rights organization was founded, was a very, very long time ago.

***
STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN BY WOMEN

It is time to give up the lie that women are not initiators of violence.

It is time to end the cover up of the actions of acid throwing  women (“acid queens”), ice pick chicks, axe murderesses, meat cleaver molls, razor mavens, &tc.

and even  female serial killers (nobody told you that there are more than 600 of them known) 

ILLUSTRATION: Serial killer & rapist Guadelupe Martinez de Bejanaro torturing one of her three female child victims (Mexico, 1892)

***

***

Below are some poster and sticker designs you may wish to use, take, snatch, steal, copy, adapt, alter for your own anti-misandric purposes:


The two fonts used here are Rockwell and Rockwell condensed.These fonts are ideal for posters.

You may wish to take the illustration separately with cut-and-paste in Microsoft PAINT program and adapt it to your own design with your own text. Be my guest.

***

SOURCE: "The flatiron incident." From an 1893 illustration Mrs. Spreel attacks her husband while her accomplice helps her commit parental child kidnapping.

***

Design for a 4 inch square sticker

***


Click on image for FULL SIZE

***


Click on image for FULL SIZE

***


Click on image for FULL SIZE

***


Click on image for FULL SIZE

***

Designed for use in Clayton, Australia (or Melbourne area):


Click on image for FULL SIZE

***

The center image for the following poster design (full size):

  


 The poster design.

Click on image for FULL SIZE

***


***

***


***

***

Monday, August 20, 2012

E. Belfort Bax: Major Anti-Misandry Writer - 1896


Ernest Belfort Bax (Jul. 26, 1854 – 26 Nov. 26, 1926) was perhaps the first major important early anti-misandry writer.

He is known for his contribution to the anonymously published 1896 book, The Legal Subjection of Men, (London, Twentieth Century Press), later reissued with a new introduction by Bax (The original book is usually incorrectly considered to be authored primarily by Bax) and his 1913 book, The Fraud of Feminism (London: Grant Richards). The full texts of both books are freely available online.

***

1908 article: Belfort Bax, “Mr. Belfort Bax Replies to his Feminist Critics.” New Age: A Weekly Review of Politics, Literature, and Art, London, Aug. 8, 1908, p. 287-288]

►1896 book: Two Barristers (anonymous authors, attributed solely, but incorrectly, to E. Belfort Bax, who made minor contributions), The Legal Subjection of Men, London, Twentieth Century Press, 1896; reprinted by New Age Press, London, 1908

►1913 book: E. Belfort Bax, The Fraud of Feminism, 1913

***

Excerpt from The Legal Subjection of Men:

BIAS OF TRIBUNALS. – The settled bias of the tribunals in favour of the woman complainant, actuating magistrates, judge and jury, operates in two ways. In the first place a woman has only to complain against a man, and the tribunal is already convinced of the justice of her claim. The tribunal is only impartial if the complaint is by one woman against another. In the next place, no adequate repression of crime or other injury by a woman against a man is even attempted.

[from: Two Barristers (Anonymous authors, attributed solely, but incorrectly, to E. Belfort Bax, who made minor contributions), The Legal Subjection of Men, 1908 (originally published by London, Twentieth Century Press, 1896)]

***



Samuel Reid: The First Fathers’ Rights Activist? - 1925


Reid was jailed on July 27, 1925. Following is the earliest report on the Reid case so far discovered.

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 13): Willows, Sept 22. – Although he has been in jail for two months for refusing to pay alimony to his former wife, Samuel W. Reid, still insists he will spend the rest of his life in the bastile before he will carry out the court order.

[Untitled, Hayward Semi-Weekly Review (Ca.), Sep. 25, 1925, p. 7]


FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 13):

~ All for a Principle ~

Sacramento, Cal. – Entering the third year of his “alimony martyrdom,” [jailed on July 27, 1925] Sam W. Reid, wealthy Glen County rancher, denied he was enjoying his lone, self-imposed imprisonment for refusal to pay alimony to his divorced wile. “I have spent three years in jail on behalf of a principle,” Reid muttered through the bars I am willing to pay $90 a month for upkeep of my daughter, but I’ll not pay one cent to support my former wife and her husband if I have to stay in jail the rest of my life.”

[“How the Other Half Lives” (Column), “All for a Principle,” The Charleston Gazette (W. Va.), Jul. 17, 1927, p. 2]

***

Reid’s case inspired the following correspondence in the Elsie Marlow advice column:
FULL TEXT (Article 3 of 13):

HAS A FATHER A RIGHT TO HIS CHILDREN?

Does that seem to be a silly question to you?

Then you should listen in while some of the Divorced Papas of this nation broadcast their grievances.

According to them a father stands just about as much chance in the divorce courts of our various States as a rabbit in the well known tropic regions.

Here's E. C., for example.

DEAR ELSIE:

Much has been written about the case of Samuel Reid, the Alimony Martyr of California. Reid is being held a prisoner in one of the jails of that State because of has refusal to pay alimony to his divorced wife while he is deprived of any voice in the shaping of his daughter's future.

Reid and his wife were divorced. The custody of the child was awarded to the mother, Reid  was refused the right to say where or how his daughter was to be reared. He refused to pay the alimony under such conditions and has been in jail ever since, about two years.

I believe the public is pretty much in sympathy with the prisoner and that the judge’s attitude in this matter is open to criticism.

About eleven years as I was faced with the same problem in one of our larger cities. My wife sued me for divorce and pending the trial of the case the judge ordered me to pay alimony and turn the two young children over to their mother.

I protested against the associates of the mother and against the environment into which the children would be thrown if given into their mother keeping. The judge stated that he would give them to the mother and that if she persisted in keeping them in objectionable surroundings, he would take them away from her and put them in a convent.

There was nothing in the divorce charge that reflected on my character. I loved my children and was simply able to provide for them. But according to the judge’s ruling, I was not to be considered at all in any disposition made of the children except in the footing of the bills.

I refused to accept such a ruling and removed my children beyond the jurisdiction of that court, in fact, out of the State. I was than haled before the judge on the grounds of kidnaping and threatened with jail, but the judge did not have the nerve to carry out his threat. Was I right or wrong?

I think the attitude of Mr. Reid’s wife smacks of vengeance and persecution and thus the judge should admit an error has been made and give the prisoner his freedom.
E. C.

There’s the opening wedge for a big argument. Many take the attitude that Mama Can Do No Wrong, But Papa Can Do Nothing But.

Should the Mother always receive greater consideration in our courts? Do you believe that Mother Love is ALWAYS greater than Father Love?

How about the Mama who sets the little darlings to spy on Papa, when they go see him once a month?

How about the divorced Papas and Mamas who carry on a guerilla warfare, using their children as a medium of exchange?

Don’t he partial – let’s have both sides of the story. If you think that Mamas are getting the worst of it, say so right out loud. Or, if you’re for the Papas, give your reasons.

[Elsie Marlowe, “Where Divorced Men Stand With Their Children” ‘Alimony Martyr of California’ Comes Forward Again,” (Premier syndicate), Athens Messenger (Oh.), Apr. 22, 1927, p. 9]


***

FULL TEXT (Article 4 of 13): Willows, Cal., Aug. 24. – Sam Reid, star boarder at the Glenn county jail, and world’s champion “alimony martyr,” and a red-haired young man who has had quite a disturbing influence on politics hereabout, is at it again.

Not content with costing county officials several thousand votes and many sleepless nights, Reid has determined to reopen his crusade for “freedom with out concession” by appeal to Governor Young.

Linking with his clemency plea a request that the state made a thorough investigation into the reasons for his martyrdom, the 32-year-old apostle of “equal rights tor men” will petition the governor for a full pardon.

“Someone is acting loony in this case, and I’m not the man,” Reid told International News Service today. “A jury of alienists has adjudged me perfectly sane. I can and I won’t pay. I can be free and I won’t be free. What’s the reason? Surely it is time the state makes an investigation before my board bill amounts to the size of the war debt.”

Reid, now entered on the third year of his self imposed imprisonment, is adamant in his resolution not to contribute to the support of his child while she is left in the custody of his former wife, who has re-married. He also stands pat on his original challenge of “Not one cent for alimony.” But that feature of the celebrated case has been solved by his ex-wife’s remarriage.


In his letter to Gov. Young the “alimony martyr” declared he will present a complete review of the famous case, which began in February. 1925, which Reid was ordered by Superior Judge Claude F. Purkitt to pay his former wife for the maintenance of their child, and refused. He will submit his record as a soldier overseas and his record at home as a prosperous farmer. He will present evidence which he claims proves his contention that his former wife should not be entrusted with the cure of their daughter.
 
As further evidence of his good faith, Reid Declared he Mill agree to pay more than four times the amount for the support of little Zada May Reid required by the court. But he “will pay it only on the condition that my daughter is placed in a good Christian home.” Mrs. Anna L. Saylor, newly appointed chief of the State Department of Social Welfare, will be asked to investigate the case.

Reid today is the biggest political issue in Glenn county, according to his friends here. One County official went down to defeat at the polls recently as a result of his imprisonment, they say, and Judge Plunkett is declared to be facing almost certain defeat at next year’s election unless “the white elephant in the county jail” is released.

While county officials argue the matter and seek vainly for a solution, Reid is working for the overthrow of “unjust alimony laws.” He has joined the Alimony Payers’ Protective Association [founded after the beginning of Reid’s campaign], a national organization composed of those who believe that “It is the man who pays and pays,” and is working through that association to break down the present system.

[Clem Whitaker, “World’s Champion Alimony Martyr Is Asking Freedom,” syndicated (INS), The Victoria Advocate (Tx.), Aug. 24, 1927, p. 4]


FULL TEXT (Article 5 of 13): If Samuel W. Reid, of California, goes down in history at all, it will be as the first champion of Equal Rights for Men. In the social Roll of Martyrs he will be emblazoned as the first “Alimony Martyr.”
           
What thousands of men have wanted to do, what hundreds have threatened to do, Reid has done. His strike against what he terms “the viciousness of the American alimony hysteria” is comparable to famous hunger strikes. He is in jail for his principles along these lines. He will die in jail, he swears, before he will deviate one inch from his stand.

“Millions for defense, but one not one cent for the tribute of alimony” is his clarion slogan, and the thousands of alimony payers throughout the United States, who meekly pay what Reid calls “legalized blackmail,” echo those noble sentiments without, however, joining Reid in his jail strike.

It began back in July 1925, when Reid was cited for contempt of court. The preceding February his wife had been granted a divorce.

Alimony had been fixed by justice C. F. Purkitt of Willows, California – a respected jurist who had formerly been chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee. Reid had failed to meet the alimony payments. Judge Purkitt ordered him sent to jail until he decided to pay up.

No one in California paid any attention to what appeared to be a routine divorce alimony tangle. No one thought, in July 1925, that young Samuel W. Reid was to become increasingly famous as “The Alimony Martyr,” that county officials and the very judge who committed him would be anxiously awaiting seeking means of getting rid of him, that two Governors of the State would be appealed to in his strange case – or that as he persisted in his lone stand even when attempts were made to prove him insane, this young unknown would receive such a flood of encouraging letters from all over the nation – and many of them from women – bidding him keep up courage and continue his one-man filibuster on behalf of altering the prevailing alimony system.

Reid was in jail six months before people generally knew he existed. In Willows, he had been a spruce, quick-witted figure. His face smooth and unlined, his garb clean and his hair well-trimmed. A prosperous young farmer of 30 years; a war veteran of the 353rd Infantry, with service in the Argonne and St. Mihiel to his credit.

When finally, he attracted more than local interest, he was looking through the bars of county jail, a bit woe-begone, everything about him changed but his mind. Hair and beard he had permitted to grow, until he had begun to take on something of a resemblance to Anton Lang, of Oberramergau’s famous Passion Play.

The court has ordered: “Stay in jail till you agree to pay alimony.”

Reid had replied: “I refuse to pay while my child remains in surroundings and environment I consider unfit for her upbringing. Change that environment. Otherwise, I shall never pay even though I remain in jail the rest of my life.”

The court meant to be obeyed. In six months, Reid had acquired a beard of a foot long – but no matter what had changed in Willows, Reid’s quiet determination continued. He proved no publicity seeker. He refused even to be photographed. He had taken a stand, and proposed to see it through.

Interest centered upon the ex-wife in this strange impasse. It was found that, in 1917, Phoebe Brownell was a schoolgirl in Orland, California. She eloped with Walter Steuben, who was employed Brownell ranch and, after living with him for nearly four years, sued him for divorce on grounds of non-support. Grieving over the suit, Stephen went to the country home near Orland, owned by J. L. Brownells, parents of his wife, and attempted suicide by shooting himself through the body. He was cared for by the Brownell family and recovered, but nevertheless the young bride obtained her divorce.

 Three years later, she was married to Reid at a fashionable wedding in the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco. They separated after a year of married life and the birth of Zada May Reid. Each sued for divorce. The wife won the decree on grounds of extreme cruelty, claiming her husband was nagging and fault-finding. Included in the decree was the order to pay for the support of the child. Reid openly admitted he possessed money to meet such payments, but deemed the custodians of the child unfit.

For this – he was in jail. And his ex-wife, who preserved silence regarding him, proceeded to marry her first husband, Walter Steuben.

After a year and four months behind bars, Reid has grown contemptuous of the law’s efforts to break his resolve. He seemed to have sentenced himself to life imprisonment. At 32, he had the hirsute adornment of a hermit And the pallor of a convict. But his Spartanlike disdain for punishment remained undiminished. Though a word from him would have won instant release, he had vowed never to speak that word.

This one-time prosperous young farmer viewed himself as a martyr to a new cause. Down through the ages, as he saw it, men had suffered imprisonment and death for liberty of thought, freedom of religious and other great principles. Reid’s cause had become “freedom from alimony payment” – if he could not have a voice in deciding who should take the child.

From July 27, 1925, when he first went to jail; he felt this martyrdom growing on him. His wife’s remarriage, and the knowledge that his child was now living with that former spouse and her former husband, had only strengthened his resolve and heightened his contempt, until, according to his jailers, his conception of freedom had become a womanless Utopia – a place where alimony was an unknown problem.

“I shall never pay,” Reid announced at this time. “It’s not the money; it’s the principle. What if I am here for life? I’m the first martyr to a great cause.”

But Glenn County officials had officially grown tired of paying the board and lodging bill of this increasingly famous “alimony martyr.”  They proceeded to force a grand jury investigation, in the hope that they might well be rid of this white elephant. Judge Purkitt, who had sentenced Reid for contempt, asked such an inquiry under legal provisions requiring that body to look into the condition of prisoners.

“Reid is defying constituted authority,” Judge Purkitt said, “but there is no excuse for him to remain in jail longer.”

Judge Purkitt recommended that Reid purge himself of contempt by paying the alimony and then apply for modification of the terms of divorce, since the wife had remarried.


To which Reid replied: “I have the money and I can pay, but I still refuse to do so. My case alone is not at stake. The whole alimony system is wrong and I propose to do what I can to right it.”

During his incarceration, Reid has spent a great deal of his time studying up on the unique subject of alimony, and has announced his intention of writing a book on the matter some day.

Alimony is defined as the “allowance for maintenance to which a wife is entitled out of her husband’s estate on a decree for judicial separation or for the dissolution of the marriage.” Though, as a rule, payable to the wife, it may, if the circumstances of the case warrant be payable to the husband. Such cases, however, are admittedly so rare that they would be regarded as worth particular comment when they occur.

Of late years the generous allotment of alimony by American judges has created a situation which does not exist in any other country in the world. The charge is made by certain victims of the alimony laws that there is a class of women who marry with the sole intention of getting alimony, and there are said to be some women who, under various names, have been drawing alimony from several husbands. Alimony was a subject for good-natured jest in the days when divorces were infrequent, but nowadays, when one out of every seven marriages in the United States is dissolved by divorce, and where there is an even greater proportion of legal separations involving alimony payments, the subject is no longer considered a laughing matter, particularly by the victims.

Reid has received letters from hundreds of alimony paying husbands, most of whom state it to be their opinion that they considered alimony a proper institution where there are children, but an unfair and inequitable tax in the case of childless marriages.

“Blackmail, that’s what it amounts to,” Reid said. “I’m willing to sacrifice my life if need be to draw attention to the plight of victims of an iniquitous industry which has the sanction of the courts.”

And while he stays in jail the letters and telegrams of congratulation and gratitude from other “victims” of the alimony laws continue to pour in, and the great number of divorced men who are paying alimony are hoping that the case may result in an investigation of the present laws on the subject.

[“California’s Embarrassing Problem of the First ‘Alimony Martyr,” The American Weekly, Sunday supplement to The San Antonio Light (Tx.), Dec. 25, 1927]

***

FULL TEXT (article 6 of 13): Willows, Cal., Jan. 18 – Samuel W. Reid is a mild-appearing young man, but he is very stubborn.

Which is why he has been in jail here ever since July 27, 1925.

In addition, Reid probably will continue to stay in jail for some time to come. Yet he could, at any time, get out very easily. If he would agree to pay alimony to his wife who divorced him more than two years ago he would be given his freedom at once.

~ Vows He Won’t Pay ~

He won’t. He vows he will stay in jail for the rest of his life rather than pay his wife one cent.

The other side shows no signs of weakening. Consequently, it begins to look as if Reid’s stubbornness will get a very long endurance test.

Reid is an intelligent-appearing, quiet young ex-soldier, who served under fire with the 91st division in France and who is not at all the kind of man you expect to find in jail.

His troubles began when Mrs. Reid sued for, and won, a divorce. The court awarded her custody of their child, a girl, gave her $20 a month alimony and directed Reid to pay an additional $20 a month for the support of the child.

Reid refused, pointblank, to pay one red cent.

He declared that while he was willing to pay for the support of his daughter, his ex-wife was not a fit person to take care of her. So long as Mrs. Reid kept the girl, he said, he would pay nothing; but if Mrs. Reid would give the girl up he would pay gladly.

Refusing to pay, he was found in contempt of court and ordered to jail until he paid.

 
~ Refused to Yield ~

County authorities were perplexed. Most alimony prisoners soften after a short confinement and agree to pay anything rather than be held prisoners. But not Reid. He calmly announced that nothing on earth could make him pay.

The county authorities felt that Reid must be mentally unsound. They had alienists examine him. The alienists reported that Reid, though very stubborn, was perfectly sane.

Meanwhile, the former Mrs. Reid re-married, taking as her husband the man to whom she had been married before she married Reid.. This increased Reid’s determination not to pay; also it caused him to appeal to Governor C. C. Young for a pardon. Governor Young refused to review his case, however, holding that it was a matter strictly between Reid and the Glenn county superior court.

Then Reid asked the court to review the alimony order. The court held, however, that this could not be done until Reid had first purged himself of contempt; and the only way he could do that was by paying up – which he would not do. So the status quo remains undisturbed.

Next the county grand jury decided to look into Reid’s charge that his ex-wife should not have custody of the child. It investigated her and her home and she was an eminently satisfactory person to take care of a little girl. Reid remained unconvinced, charging that the foreman of the grand jury was a close friend of Mrs. Reid.

~ Refused to Shave ~

During the first few months of his imprisonment Reid refused to shave or have his hair cut, and for a time he presented a strange and shaggy appearance. He soon tired of that, however, and now keeps as neatly groomed as though he were a rising young bond salesman.

His quarters are not regulation jail quarters. He has a room on the second floor somewhat away from the regular cell block. He has a comfortable bed, a bureau, a number of pictures on the walls and a set of his own books. He eats his meals with the rest of the prisoners, mingles with them occasionally in the “bull pen” and, on the whole, seems not to mind greatly being held a prisoner.

[“He Stays in Jail Two Years Rather Than Pay Wife Alimony – Ex-Husband Vows He’ll Never Give His Former Wife One Cent,” syndicated (NEA Service), Jefferson City Post-Tribune (Mo.), Oct. 11, 1928, p. 3]

***


FULL TEXT (Article 7 of 13): Willows, Cal., Oct. 26.— October 10 years ago saw the 363rd infantry fighting, plodding, dying through the mud, muck and morasses of the Argonne and the Ypres-Lys salient.

And the present October finds the remnants of the 363rd still shoulder to shoulder, winning objectives — with the regimental treasury suffering the casualties.

The regiment’s latest victory is winning the four-year “alimony war,” which has almost divided this county, while the “alimony martyrdom” of Sam W. Reid gained nation-wide prominence, and brought threats of everything from appeals to the governor to storming the legislature.

Reid fought in the 363rd during the World war. After the war, he married. A few years later, his wife sued for divorce here. She was granted a degree, custody of their baby daughter, $20 a month alimony and $20 a month for the child’s support. Reid refused to pay. “As long as the child remains in the keeping of her maternal grandparents, I’ll not pay a cent,” was Sam’s defi [challenge, defiance].

“You'll pay or you'll go to jail until you do pay,” in substance was the ukase of the court. Reid chose to defy this edict.

And he was adjudged in contempt of court by Judge Claude F. Purkitt here, and placed in jail.

That was in July, 1925. Reid defending his position as he saw it “dug in” at the jail, prepared for a long stay. The court, equally determined, stood its ground. The case became widely discussed – and hopelessly deadlocked.

Someone brought an insanity charge against Reid. A sanity trial found him normal.
For more than three years he ate and slept as the guest of Glenn county. There seemed no way of breaking the impasse.

Wartime buddies of Reid decided that a visit by the “alimony martyr” to the tenth annual reunion of the old outfit might take his mind off his domestic troubles and instill in “Alimony Sam” a desire to get back into the world again.

Sheriff Roy Heard, tall and popular, had became friendly with Reid during the years of the latter's voluntarily imprisonment. He, too, felt that a new viewpoint was Sam’s greatest need. And although he knew he laid himself liable to serious charges, Sheriff Heard took the prisoner to San Francisco to the reunion. Sam had a wonderful time, he told Heard as they returned to jail.

Then the Glenn County Bar association formally charged Heard with contempt of court in taking the prisoner from the county. A date was set for the hearing.

The 363rd felt that it was losing ground in its fight to rehabilitate Reid. It’s officers summoned an attorney, and rushed here from San Francisco to assist Heard. For hours, the veterans argued with Reid, attacking, his stubborn fight for a principle, telling of the sheriff's plight through working in Reid’s behalf. They pledged the support of the old outfit in getting Sam started again and in any sort of legal action he might later want to take, for custody of his child.

And just before the sheriff was to appear in the overcrowded courtroom on the contempt charge, attorneys announced that Reid had been purged of the contempt charge through payment of the disputed alimony by the 363rd infantry association.

Heard was declared in contempt of court, arid was fined $250.

The treasury of the 863rd suffered its second setback of the day as it yielded the money to pay the fine of the sheriff who braved arrest to go over the top with the 363rd in breaking an impasse.

And now, “Alimony Sam” and his three years in jail here, are becoming a memory; the sheriff is being hailed as a real hero, and the remnants of the 363rd are proving the truth of its boast that “this gang sticks together.”

[Phil J. Sinnott, “Buddies Go to the Rescue – and ‘Alimony Sam’ is Free at Last,” syndicated (NEA), Miami-News-Record (Fl.), Oct. 25, 1928, p. 4]

 
FULL TEXT (Article 8 of 13): “Alimony Sam” Reid, who spent three years in the county jail at Willows rather than pay back alimony which he felt that he did not owe, breaks into the news again.

This time it is in connection with the now Twentieth Century market which opens to Eastbay shoppers on Saturday.

“Alimony Sam” will manufacture and sell candled popcorn at the new market.

“I was offered $400 it week to go on the vaudeville stage after my release from jail,” Reid explained, “but I did not think that I should capitalize on that. I stayed in jail because I felt that I could not meet the order of the court and still retain my own sense of justice. I decided that I would rather earn my living in a regular way. Reid has several vocations and avocations. He decided to enter the market “game” because he loved children. Popcorn, especially candied popcorn, appeals to the youngsters, Reid said. So he capitalized on his candymaking experience and rented a booth in the new market to cater to the sweet tooth or youngsters of all ages. He will make his home in Oakland.

“I like it in Oakland, and I feel this city has a great future.” he said, “so I decided to stake what I have in this venture. I can’t lose.”

The Twentieth Century market began running an “Alimony Sam Says” feature – quips from the folk hero –  with their newspaper ads in this issue of the Oakland Tribune.

[“Alimony Sam Sells Popcorn at Market,” Oakland Tribune (CA.), Dec. 14, 1928, p. 39]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 9 of 13): Sacramento – Sam Reid, one time “alimony martyr” of Glenn county, Wednesday landed a state highway job because he was a member of the 363rd regiment of the 93rd division.

Shabby, hungry and worn out hunting for a job, Reid appeared ac the office of Colonel Walter Garrison, director of public works, also a former member of the 363rd.

“All we’ve got in the way of work is mighty hard work on a state road camp in Plumas county.” Garrison told Reid.

“That’s fine,” Reid replied. “I haven’t had work for months and I haven’t eaten for several days.”

So the former alimony martyr, who once went to jail at Willows rather than pay alimony, got the job and was sent to the load camp where he will receive $4 a day for three days a week.

[“‘No Alimony’ Martyr Works on State Road,” syndicated (UP), San Mateo Daily Times (Ca.), Jan. 28, 1931, p. 5]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 10 of 13): Orland, April 17 – Zada Reid Stuben, 6, daughter of Sam Reid, Glenn county’s famous “alimony martyr” and central figure in his many legal battles to gain release from jail, died last night at a Woodland hospital, following a two weeks’ illness.

[“Martyr Loses Child,” San Mateo Times (CA.), Apr. 17, 1931, p. 1]

***
FULL TEXT (Article 11 of 13): Orland – The death of their daughter, Zada Reid Steuben, six, reunited Sam Reid, famous “alimony martyr” and his former wife, Mrs. Walter Steuben [Phoebe], here Saturday when Reid arrived from Plumas county to attend the funeral. Reid was at the grave for public funeral services for the child.

[“’Alimony Sam’ Attends Funeral of Daughter,” syndicated (Valley News Alliance), Woodland Democrat (Ca.), Apr. 20, 1931, p. 4]

***
FULL TEXT (Article 12 of 13): Sam Reid, famous one-tile “alimony martyr,” Thursday faced suit brought in Willows by his wife, E. B. (sic) Steuben, of Orland, for $779.80, alleged due for medical expenses and burial of their child, Zada Reid Steuben, who died in Woodland, April 16, according to a Valley News Alliance report.

Mrs. Steuben charges the money was expended at the request of the defendant and that he “failed, refused and neglected to pay the money.”

Reid, when last heard of here, was a surveyor for the State Highway Commission at San Luis Opispo.

At the time of the funeral, he said he had not been allowed access to the Steuben home at Orland to see the child in its coffin, although he attended the services at the graveside.

Three hundred dollars, left by the girl’s grandmother, Mrs. Lois Brownell, and which fell to Reid and his former wife at the time of the child’s death, has been attached as a result of the suit.

[“Sam Reid In Court Again As Divorced Wife Sues,” Woodland Democrtat (Ca.), Jul. 30, 1931, p. 1]

NOTE: Lois may have been the child’s great aunt rather than grandmother. Find-a-grave reports the death of Phoebe’s mother, Laura Z. Brownell, on Oct. 3, 1947, in Orland. Laura Z. Brownell was born in 1873.

***

FULL TEXT (Article 13 of 13): Willows, Cal. May 28 – Sam Reid, Glenn county’s “alimony martyr,” today prepared to fight a law suit which he discovered his former wife had filed against him and on which she would have obtained a default judgment in one more week.

Mrs. Phoebe Steuben of Orland, former wife, sought judgment for $7.50 medical and burial expenses for their daughter, Phebe (sic) Reid.

Reid spent several years in the county jail for refusal to pay his former wife alimony. His case attracted national attention.

[“’Alimony Sam’ Will Sue Ex-Wife Again,” syndicated (UP), Oakland Tribune (Ca.), May 29, 1932, p.4]


Two Related Articles:



***


For more revelations of this suppressed history, see The Alimony Racket: Checklist of Posts

***

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Community Disapproval of Domestic Violence


Ever since the 1960s feminist professors, lawyers, journalists and government bureaucrats have been lying to the public about domestic violence. Among the armada of fabrications floated by these propagandists is the slanderous claim that through the 19th century and the first half of the 20th society was tolerant of domestic violence against wives. The claims are false, but are still perpetuated by thousands of “experts” and by respected law publishers to this very day.

This myth of the social acceptance of domestic violence against women is necessary to keep alive if the feminist social engineers wish to keep the “rule of thumb” hoax (the infamous “law” that never was a law) going.

Following are examples of 19th and early 20th century community activism showing that in reality men treated wife beaters with the exact opposite of tolerance. Honest historical research  reveals the facts are the exact opposite of what the “experts” have been telling us all our lives.

IMAGE: The headline illustration from Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn shows two of the punishments – riding the rail and tar and feathers – that in days gone by were conferred by communities upon male perpetrators of domestic violence against women.

***

  • 1853 – Joseph Hines – New York, N. Y. – 3 passers-by rescue a battered wife, killing the wife beater
  • 1869 – Holmes, England – given the “rail” treatment and paraded with a sign “Wife Beater”
  • 1876 – St. Louis, Mo. – a witness “well thrashed the ignoble wife beater” (collection)
  • 1884 – A. J. Capher – Sturgeon, Mo. – 3 community members gave him 40 lashes (collection)
  • 1885 – Pittsburg, Pa. – community organization: “Society for the protection of married women” (collection)
  • 1886 – Bill Gibson – Logansport, Indiana – forced to leave town by community, including newspaper 
  • 1888 – Polenski, of Barnesville, Minn – jailed, but removed by lynch mob; he begged not to be hanged (collection)
  • 1889 – John Emmons – Gaylord, Kan. –  jailed, removed by community members, tarred and feathered (collection)
  • 1889 – Hans Jacob Olson – LaCrosse, Wis. – lynched (collection)
  • 1893 – Adam Schnell – Struble, Iowa – attacks judge outside courtroom, severely beaten by bystanders
  • 1894 – Waldo, Fla. – Dan Wiggins – tied to tree, whipped by group of women (collection)
  • 1896 – John Winders – Hopkinsville, Ky. – lynched (collection)
  • 1896 – Henry Maul – Mascoutah, Il. – whipped by vigilantes
  • 1901 – Valentine Miller – West Chicago. Ill. – tarred and feathered  (collection)
  • 1904 – Patrick McCormick – Tampico, Il. – grabbed by community members and his head held under the town pump, threatened with lynching if he repeated offense (collection)
  • 1914 – George Logan – Malvern, Io. – chased out of town by the community
  • 1915 – John Slovak – Shiner, Nv. – lynched (collection)
•◄•

Here are quotations of phrases which demonstrate how domestic violence was seen by society during the period in which feminist experts falsely claim that domestic violence against women was seen as a “private matter,” went unpunished and was considered socially acceptable. The historical fraud, still widely propagated in an important part of the foundational rationale for the build-up of the Bill of Rights-defying, authoritarian and lucrative domestic violence industry.

1853 – “It is a pity that every vile rascal who beats wife could not served in the same manner.” – Hines

1861 – “well thrashed the ignoble wife-beater.” – St. Louis, Mo.

1871 – “He was adjudged guilty and sentenced to thirty days in the chain-gang, a punishment he richly merits.” – Swan

1876 – “All right, our Sheriff is a skillful hand with a buggy whip, we presume he will settle with all our wife beaters. Pay them off in their own coin; our reporter [Los Angeles Herald] will be on hand.” – Los Angeles

1876 – “In the California Legislature, senate introduced a bill to summarily punish wife beaters, to the effect a battery, if inflicted upon the wife the assailant, shall be punishable by the infliction of no less than twenty-one lashes on the bare back to be administered by the Sheriff of the county, under the direction of the court or judge. This is very good, but capital punishment would better.” – Tucson Arizona newspaper reporter

1886 – “the cowardly savage”; “If the villain looks to his safety, he will never again return.” – Gibson

1893 – “It does us good whenever we learn of a wife beater getting punished.” – Schnell

•◄•


At present the “politically correct” social engineers indoctrinated in collectivist ideology, with the entire arsenal of the post-Constitutional government of Washington, D.C. and the leadership of the multi-national corporations, which treat people as mere “human resources,” have the power, yet:

“Power cannot smash truth out of existence.” – Jim Garrison