FULL TEXT: The National Divorce Reform League, whose main object is to establish uniform divorce laws throughout the United States, has another plan which it would like to have the New York State Legislature pass at its next session and which should be more interesting to the average taxpayer, since it touches his pocketbook more closely.
This
is to relieve a husband
from going to jail for not paying alimony to his wife and to place upon the
taxpayer the responsibility of supporting her and any children she may have, if
the husband isn’t able to do it.
Every
wife who has reached the “age of dissent,” which is twenty-five years,
is to be entitled to divorce and alimony, even if she is the “guilty party” and
whether her husband has any money or not. If he is not earning more than $30 a
week, the State digs down into its treasury for her weekly balm and also for
the support of the children. This, in effect, is to make the already not so
cheerful taxpayer The third party to the divorce triangle, without a chance to
defend himself, opponents of the measure point out, adding that it also allows
an irresponsible man who has already saddled one wife and family on the
treasury to wait only two weeks before running around to a minister or justice
of the peace and starting another family headed for the public payroll.
The
present New York law forbids the guilty party to remarry within the lifetime of
the other, except with the court’s consent, which cannot be given for at least
three years. This is interfering with an individual’s right to the pursuit of
happiness, the League thinks, and should he abolished.
The
only delay, says the League, should be a compulsory two weeks which, under its
plan, must elapse between the application for any marriage license and its
issuance. During that time the application would have to be posted in the
clerk’s office and published in a newspaper.
Even
if these proposals are passed, the divorce millennium will not have quite
arrived. Up to the age of twenty-five, a girl will have to give some thought as
to whether she is likely to live peacefully with the man of her choice. If she
is under twenty-five, she can still throw him out the moment she tires of him
or thinks she would prefer another man, but neither he nor the taxpayer will
owe her a cent unless she has been married to him for at least one year.
At
present a New York divorce can be obtained only for infidelity. In addition to
this the League would list the following causes: Two years’ legal separation,
living apart for five years, desertion for three, abandonment and non-support
for three, cruelty, habitual drunkenness, incurable insanity, conviction and
sentence for a felony.
The
most important charge is cruelty which, in other States, has proved so elastic
that it includes most everything, even driving a car too fast and criticizing a
wife for displaying herself almost nude on the beach. The League points out
that because of New York’s strict divorce law moat all its divorce business has
been driven to Reno and others centers of liberality. It is planned that both
parties to a divorce action must be represented in court. If the defendant
fails to appear the court shall appoint a third party to represent him, which
is supposed to be for the protection of the absentee’s interests. But if such a
law is constitutional it would put the man’s property under the jurisdiction of
the court which would then hand over a large slice of it to the wife.
This
may seem a bit severe, but the League offers to mitigate it somewhat by
requiring an apprenticeship before the wife can collect.
The
plan as set forth is as follows:
“If
the wife has lived with her husband has than one year she cannot be looked upon
as having contributed to the building of his estate and therefore is not
deserving of his continued support. However, if there be children and they be
awarded to the mother, then
she is to receive $10 a week for the first and $5 for each additional one. He
must, however, have an income greater than $30 a week before he is liable to
the payments.
“If
the wife is over twenty-five and has lived with her husband two years, she is
entitled to 25 per cent of his estate up to $50,000 and a third of all over
that; also $15 a week for alimony. It is assumed that during this period she
has contributed to the building up of the estate and is entitled to share in
it.
“But
if a wife has lived with her husband for ten years she is entitled to half of
the first $50, 000, regardless of her age.”
By
keeping the bulk of the marriage and divorce business at home, the League
figures New York will take in quite a lot of money.
“When
the saving that such a plan brings to the State is considered,” the League
claims, “it becomes problematical whether any additional revenue will be
necessary (for the free alimony). With such a law there will be no need for
alimony jails. The bulk of civil jail inmates at the present time are alimony
defaulters.”
Peggy
Rich, the former Ziegfeld beauty, would have found these proposed laws most
convenient In her divorce from Freddie Rich, the very successful bandmaster.
Mr. Rich was so inconsiderate as to raid his wife’s apartment and catch her
with Jack de Ruyter. This made her the defendant and disqualified her from any
alimony rights.
Under
the proposed new laws this status would not have made the slightest difference
and the entirely innocent bandmaster would have had to see at least a third of
his estate handed over to Peggy and on top of that would have been obliged to
pay her $15 a week the rest of her life.
Claire
Ray is another attractive actress who would have fared batter under the
proposed law. Miss Ray, who has had so many husbands she doesn’t remember their
names very well and can’t be sure whether it was five or six, tried to get a
judge to grant her $500 a week alimony from her next-to-last husband, Charles
E. Carnevale, son of a multi-millionaire, by telling how he had given her a
$20,000 automobile, a $15,000 chinchilla coat and a 26-carat ring, all of which
she considered proof of his ability to pay. But the judge thought otherwise and
she didn’t get a cent. Under the League’s plan, she would at least be entitled
to $15 a week, but, of course, she could only collect from one ex-husband at a
time.
The
congregation of the Prayer Tabernacle, Kansas City, Missouri, would no doubt
have welcomed the League’s divorce scheme with hosannas and hallelujahs. In
1930 their beloved pastor, the Rev. Mr. Carl C. Walker, had been divorced by
his wife and gotten into alimony default. Mrs. Walker with a squad of deputy
sheriffs broke into the rectory and started carting off all the minister’s
worldly goods.
In
this crisis Mr. Walker prayed for help and it came in the form of several influential
parishioners who paid the wife $800 cash down and obligated the flock to
underwrite all future payments of $60 a week alimony. That was all right an
long as the church thought its pastor was worth it, but the spirit moved him to
wander away, socking pastures new, and they were stuck with the alimony,
instead of the taxpayer, as under the reformed plan. Mrs. Etta S. Miller,
society matron, would have been saved a lot of surprise and anguish by the
League’s Idea when she convinced Supreme Court Justice Raymond E. Aldrich of
West-Chester, N. Y., that her husband had been guilty of repeated infidelity
with a Russian Princess who was known as Mme. Birit and also the family’s
pretty French maid. Mlle. Jeanneret, who obligingly came into court and
confessed all about it. Yet it did not do Mrs. Miller a bit of good.
If
true, it was ample ground for divorce but, for reasons of her own, she
preferred to ask only for separation with alimony which is supposed to be
easier to get. But Mrs. Miller said her wealthy husband, Robert McWilliam
Miller, had carried on his affairs so discreetly that she never suspected his
philandering until both affairs were all over. Then it was too late for her to
be sufficiently upset to warrant a separation, though a divorce would have been
in order.
An
analysis of the League’s provisions about alimony, approved by Theodore E.
Apstein, the League’s attorney, is as follows:
1.
When a wife is entitled to support for herself, it is never to be more and
never leas than $15 a week.
2. If
a wife has lived with her husband less than a year she is not entitled to
support regardless of her age.
3. If
a wife has lived with her husband for one year but less than ten years and la
under twenty-five years old she is not entitled to any support unless she is
unable to work because of lack of training or physical unfitness. If it is
merely lack of training she is to receive alimony until she learns how to earn
her own upkeep.
4. If
a wife has lived with her husband for one year but lens than ten years and is
over twenty-five age gets alimony the rest of her life or until she marries
again.
5.
Any wife who has lived with her husband ten years is entitled to alimony,
regardless of her age.
6. If
a wife has lived with her husband less than two years, regardless of her age,
she is not entitled to any share of his estate.
7. If
a wife has lived with her husband for two years but less than ten years and is
still under twenty-five she is not entitled to any share of his estate.
8. If
a wife has lived with her husband for two years but leas than ten years and is
over twenty-five she is entitled to 25 per cent of his estate up to $60,000 and
one-third of anything over that.
9. If
a wife has been married ten years, regardless of her ago, she is entitled to 50
per cent of his estate up to $50,000 and one-third of anything over that.
10.
If a husband is making enough money and cares to make a private agreement,
outside the court, he can do so, but under no circumstances can a wife sue a
husband for more than $15 a week for the support of herself.
11.
If the husband is earning only $30 a week, or less, the State pays the entire
$15 a week to his wife.
12.
If he is earning more than $30 a week he pays a proportionate share.
13.
Suppose, for example, there are three children and the wife is entitled to $15
for herself. She would then receive $35 a week. If her husband was only earning
$30 a week the State would pay it all. Above that minimum, the husband would
pay his proportionate amount and the State the rest. Thus a man with a divorced
wife and three children to support would have to be earning $85 a week before
he would be paying the whole thing.
14.
If a wife meets the requirements that entitle her to share in the estate of her
husband at the time of divorce she must pay a proportionate share of the
children’s upkeep, so far as her income from her share of the estate goes. For
example, a wife with one child receives at the time of the divorce her 25 per
cent of a $20,000 estate. That would be $5,000. At 3 per cent interest, that
would bring her $150 a year. The cost of supporting a child is arbitrarily
placed at $520 a year or $10 a week. She would then pay $150 of that, and her
husband or the State the remaining $370. At 3 per cent, the husband’s income from
his three-quarters of the estate would be $450 a year. If his total income,
including this $450, is only $30 a week, the State would then pay her $370 a
year, or $7.11 a week, and she would be paying the remaining $2.89.
[“Let the Taxpayers Pay the Alimony? – Interesting Plan of
the National Divorce Reform League by Which Almost Any Woman Can Have a Divorce
and Support, Even If Her Husband is a Tramp,” The American Weekly (magazine
section of San Antonio Express (Tx.), Sep. 19, 1937, p. 7]
Woman as parasite: the world owes me a living for being a woman.
ReplyDeleteSo if a man won't/cant pay, the state (other men via compulsion) should have to do.
Pure tyranny. ENOUGH.
FTWR...