1911 was the year Judge Farlin Q. Ball delivered his startling ruling holding that it was permissible for divorced women to file for alimony even decades following their divorce if they learn that their once-spouse has managed to earn enough money to make him an attractive target for the then aged gold-digger. 1911 was a year that produced remarkable cases of profligate alimony princesses, whose insatiable passion for luxury made international news.
The exploits of Ethel Stewart Elliott of New York and a Mrs. Trude of Chicago offer us an illuminating glimpse of the horrors of patriarchal oppression as practiced by courts following laws “made by men for the benefit of men” (as is claimed by feminists) as it was experienced by the “victim gender” early 20th century United States.
NOTE: In 1911 the average annual income in the United States was $520. Here are a few consumer product prices to put this figure into context: pound of butter was 34 cents, a half gallon of milk was 17 cents, a pound of round steak was 18 cents, a pound of potatoes was 22 cents and a brand new car was $750.
***
FULL TEXT:
• HERE’S THE MILLION DOLLAR ALIMONY GIRL • She Was an Actress, Married a Rich Man, Learned Extravagance, Was Divorced, Got a Million Alimony, But Couldn’t Stop Spending Money, So Now She Is “Broke.”
NEW YORK, Nov. 21.—The “million dollar alimony girl”— Ethel Stewart Elliott—went into bankruptcy the other day, giving as her main asset unpaid alimony amounting to $28,000.
Eleven years ago as Ethel Stewart, dancing in the extravaganza “Chris and the Wonderful Lamp” she danced her way into the heart of John Love Elliott, millionaire mining man.
For a few years they were happy. Then came the break and – divorce in 1907. Elliott at that time, it is said, settled $1,000,000 on his wife and allowed an extra $28,000 yearly to support her and her daughter.
In the years since then Mrs. Elliott satisfied her craving for fine clothes, for travel and a life of ease. The million dwindled away and now she’s “broke.”
Here are some of the debts listed in Ethel Stewart Elliott’s bankruptcy petition:
For dresses, hats and furs …………… $11, 600
Underwear………………………….………. 672
Shoes ………………………………….…….. 16
Music lessons ……………………………… 310
Cab hire ……………………….…………… 205
Saddle horses ………………….……….…… 88
Jewellry ……………………….….………..1,391
Toys …………………………….…………… 64
Rent ……………………………….……… 2,166
Source: [“Here’s The Million Dollar Alimony Girl,” The Tacoma Times (Wa.), Nov. 21, 1911, p. 1]
NOTE: According to one source, the average wage in the US in 1910 was 22 cents an hour. In 1911 a Pound Sterling was worth about $3 US. Thus, I offer a rough equivalent of the value of £375 1911 as $67,100 US today.
***
FULL TEXT:
“The sum of £375 a year for beauty aids, such as face-powder, is not too much for a woman of moderate means,” This statement (says the New York correspondent of the Daily Telegraph) was made in Chicago by Mrs. Trude, who, in her application for alimony, specifies certain personal requirements. The lady estimates that the following items are “reasonably necessary” for a lady of fairly good position:—
Perfume and toilet water £120
Face powder 90
Manicure bills 40
Hairdressers’ bills 70
All other cosmetics and miscellaneous 55
Total . . . £375
“There are many women in Chicago,” says Mrs. Trude, “whose bills are much higher. Perfume bills often run into hundreds of dollars, and the special kind I buy costs £1 10s an ounce. If I worried every time I receive a £10 perfume bill I should be busy.”
Mrs. Trude says that she practices economy in all her buying. She keeps her silk stocking bill down to £15 a month by buying carefully. She says that her hats don’t cost more than £240 a year. She believes in being well shod, and says that money spent on the best shoes is economy. That item does not exceed £35 yearly. “I never buy clothes or beauty things unless I positively need them. I keep my wants 10 per cent, under my income, regardless of the demands of society.” Every woman should do that. She should save at least that percentage of her income every year, even if she has to go without the best perfumes now and then.”
Source: [“Extravagant American Women.” Hawera & Normandy Star (Hawera, New Zealand), Oct. 14, 1911, p. 10]
