Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3

That Fallacy of support Again

"But you forget that the husband is responsible for the support of the wife, and that he also and he alone is responsible for the support of the children. That is the reason that it is but justice that he be given the property," another individual offered.

"You are mistaken," the speaker informed him. "At our last session of the legislature an Act was passed making the property of the mother equally liable for the support of the children with that of the father. Besides, according to the criminal code, the mother had always been equally liable if by neglect the children suffer. You cannot spring that reason for the father having all the property.

"As to the husband's liability, for the support of the wife, that fallacy is a hardly perennial. If you will use the term: "must give a pittance toward her support," the term would be more nearly correct, but even that is too much to use as a real statement of actual facts. A case was lately tried in Saskatoon where a man found a place for his wife in the home of his son. Although the wife said that she could find a place for herself where she should receive wages and not be nearly so much of a servant, yet the Judge decided that was "providing for her with the meaning of the law." The support that a man must according to law give his wife, would be a joke if it were not a tragedy."
 

[<<back] [top]