(2 of 5)
— * and give him nothing but a pain in the neck! Boy, and how they can do that!
Congratulations to TIME for giving the men a break, and I hope to — — * my own State puts through some legislation of the same kind!
G. T. OVERMAN
St. Louis, Mo.
Sirs:
Your article . . . started a friendly controversy around our fireside the other night.
My wife's position was something like this. She said that when a man married a woman he signified an intention of being responsible for her the rest of their natural lives. If unhappiness causes them to separate, the law requires that he support her unless some gross act of hers has caused the separation. It was my wife's opinion that alimony curtailment was much harder on the woman, who had grown to expect it, than diminished income was to the man. She viewed with some alarm the prerogative of judges in this State to scale down alimony payments, believing that for some men it would simply mean reducing the wife's income in the same manner that they would cut their cook's pay, and with the Depression to use as an excuse in both cases.
It was my contention that the marriage contract should not be considered by Church and State as a perpetual meal ticket, and that were I a woman separated from her husband I would prefer to live without his assistance if possible. I could not understand why women took it as a matter of course that they were to be supported by men with whom they no longer share their lives. And while admitting the possibility of ex-husbands' reducing their separated wives' allowances from convenience rather than necessity, I thoroughly deplored the legal precedent which had kept 130 men in a New York City jail because they were unable to maintain irate wives.
My own wife, from whom I hope I am never divorced, and I went to bed leaving the debate undecided. . . .
FREDERIC T. HOPE
Buffalo, N. Y.
East Side Turmoil Sirs:
I wish to congratulate you on the splendid article contained in your issue of May 8 in reference to the Jewish dietary laws. It was one of the most accurate as well as informative articles on this subject that I have ever read.
Said article is especially apropos at this time in view of a recent decision in the Magistrate's Court of New York City in reference to the violation of the kosher food laws by Jacob Branfman & Son, one of the largest, if not the largest of the kosher delicatessen manufacturers. . . .
It may surprise you to know that practically no mention has been made of this decision in any of the English newspapers, whereas the subject has occupied considerable space since the handing down of the decision, in the entire Yiddish press. As a matter of fact, this information threw the citizens of the East Side of New York City into a turmoil in view of the fact that most of the persons in that vicinity had in the past eaten the products of this company, and according to the Jewish dietary laws, there is a grave question as to whether the dishes that were used while eating these products would continue to be kosher. . . . HARRY SAND
Brooklyn, N. Y. Amazed Parisian, Prompted Londoner
Sirs: