[Indexed as: (Reid, Samuel W. case), Elsie Robinson (“Listen World” column), syndicated (King Features), The Light (San Antonio, Tx.), Nov. 13, 1926]

Samuel W. Reid has sentenced himself to life imprisonment. In an honest-to-goodness prison.

Sam isn’t insane. Nor is he a vicious criminal nor a fanatic: He ig a healthy, intelligent, normal young mail- of thirty-two and before he went to jail e was a prosperous young farmer of Clem [sic, should be “Glenn”] county. There’s a vast difference between the sunny freedom of a California farm and the dark, cheerless interior of a California prison cell. Yet Samuel has deliberately chosen the prison cell in preference to the farm and elected to remain there. It’s a big story. Listen.

Some years ago Sam married The Girl. For a little while there was the usual dream; of bliss. Then came discord.

Finally the divorce court. And when Judge Purkitt of Glenn county gave the decree he awarded Mrs. Sam alimony.

Right there Sam rebelled.

“I’m against alimony on principle,” said he. “It’s a poisonous practice and the men of this country should make a stand against it. So I’m going to start the rebellion. I won’t pay!”

“You’ll go to jail if you don’t,” said the Judge.

“Lead me to it,” said Sam. And they led him.

On July 27, 1925, Sam went to jail, there to remain until he relented and purged himself of contempt of court by promising to pay that alimony.

That’s more than a year ago. The wife has married again. The alimony is still unpaid.

“It will never be paid,” says Sam. “It’s a matter of principle with me and I’m going to spend my life right here to prove that I’ll fight for what I think is right.”

And, as an additional protest Sam’s letting his -whiskers grow. No more razor for -Sam until the world has been made safe for ex-husbands.

What do you think of it?

I’m all for Sam in his fight against the alimony evil. I doubt, if I would have the fortitude to make a martyr of myself for the cause. I’ve always had a secret shameful conviction- that if they had depended on me to feed the lions in the Roman arenas, the lions would have stayed hungry.

This alimony business is a pernicious practice.

Maintenance for children—support for sick or aged wives—such laws are necessary and should have the support or every decent citizen. But there s no logical reason on earth why a man should support an able-bodied ex-wife who is able to support herself.

“But he broke my heart,” protests an indignant divorcee.

This matter of broken hearts is a 50-50 proposition, lady dear. In all probability he didn’t do any more damage to your ideals or affections ban you did to his. He certainly had lively hopes that you would make him happy or he wouldn’t have married you. And you must have disappointed lira just as he disappointed you. So he has gone out of your life.

“Wasn’t he my husband?”

Yes he was your husband but he wasn’t your slave. You didn’t own the smallest particle of his body, mind or soul. He belonged to himself just as much after marriage as he did before. Your marriage wasn’t a bill of sale. It was the record of an attempted partnership by two separate, free individuals. It was more than a material partnership. It implied certain beautiful and strong spiritual obligations. BUT IT NEVER IMPLIED THE OWNERSHIP OF EACH OTHER.

This is the condition of marriage as it is understood by our courts. Certain religious bodies hold that there is a deeper bond between husband and wife, but our courts do not subscribe to this belief. If they did they could not grant divorces or sanction remarriage. By the granting of divorce the American court openly says:

“A husband does not belong to a wife or a wife to a husband. If they wish to part they have a right to do so. provided they can prove that they have legal ground. Having parted they become separate ‘individuals, with all the rights and liberties of separate individuals.”

That’s what the American court says when it grants a divorce. But it doesn’t say that when it awards separate maintenance or alimony to an able bodied, childless woman. It then takes quite another attitude and proclaims — “He’s yours, sister. Stick him up and we’ll back you.”

That’s what the institution of alimony implies. Do you think it is a credit to a civilized people?