The Tragic Tryst of Blinn and Sayer, and the laws of 1919 and 2019.

Yesterday I ran an item from the Casper newspaper featuring the story of a young girl (18) who ran off with a 33 year old Lusk businessman. The man, age 33, was married and had six children. That items is here:

May 26, 1919. Monday scenes.

Treaty news still dominated, but other events were creeping in, including disaster and adventure.

As well as misbehavior and lust.  A Lusk businessman had departed that town with an 18 year old girl, still in school, and abandoned his wife and six children. The shamed couple had relocated to Venice California, where they'd opened a "root beer concession".

The youthful participant in the illicit tryst admitted she had "loved unwisely".  She was now with child.

I didn't go into it beyond that, but perhaps I should have. That story tells us a lot.  About then and now, but perhaps beyond that.

Okay,t he story itself.

Earl Blinn, a man with a business in Lusk, married and father of six, sold his business and drove to Salt Lake.  Bessie Sayer, of a well to do family, followed by train, as was prearranged, and met Blinn in Salt Lake. From there they traveled on to California. 

Based upon the story we know that they must have left weeks if not a couple of months prior, and more likely that. We also know that Sayer must have been 17 years old at the time as there's a suggestion that the Mann Act might be invoked, although that's not entirely clear.

Blinn had been arrested on charges of deserting his family.  It was expected that more serious charges were yet to come.

So would all that happen now?  And if not, should it?

To start with, a lot matters about Sayer's age. If she was 17 years old, the Mann Act would still come into play and indeed Blinn could be charged, and probably would be, with some variety of sexual assault.  That latter charge would have been highly likely in 1919 as well.  "Statutory Rape" is the common term for that offense. 

The Mann Act itself makes it a Federal crime to transport a "woman or a girl" across state lines for prostitution or "debauchery".

That's relevant here as Blinn would could potentially still have been charged with a violation of the Mann Act even if Sayer was 18.

And that's quite different from now.

In 1919, and for at least two decades there after, it was generally illegal to cohabitate in Wyoming without being married, and that was also the case for other states.  Some states addressed this through common law marriage, but in no state then, as now, could a person be married to more than one spouse and there was no such thing then, as now, as common law polygamy.

So Blinn could have found himself facing Federal criminal charges now matter what.

Blinn was charged in 1919 under state law with abandoning his family.  That's not a crime now.  Indeed, if she was 18, nothing in what we see here is now illegal at all.   You could do all of it, consequences don't matter.

And those consequences are quite real.  Mrs. Blinn was left with six children in Lusk after her husband sold his business and took up with the youthful Miss Sayer. Sayer was playing the "unwise love" card, but truth be known, she'd done a terrible injustice to Mrs. Blinn.  In 2019, that would play itself out in court and Mr. Blinn would end up with a divorce decree that split their property and he'd also end up paying child support.  If things work as they so often do, he'd frequently fail to pay it and there'd be little that could be done about.

In 1919, he stood a good chance of going to jail.  Not that this would address Mrs. Blinn's financial distress.

The Blinn's were highly likely to get a divorce as there certainly was fault here, an element of that action at that time.  No Fault divorce didn't exist.  Chances are high that Mr. Blinn would find himself paying alimony in 1919, something that's uncommon here in 2019.  His support obligations would go on.

Chances are good two that Miss Sayer would face a legal action from Mrs. Blinn in 1919.  Sayer committed a tort called Criminal Conversation as well as the tort of Alienation of Affection.  The newspaper article reminds us that Sayer was from a "well to do" family, and she may have had some resources.  So her troubles may very well have not ended.

Indeed, in practical terms, they were far from over.  Sayer was pregnant and going to end up having a baby in an era when out of wedlock children, let alone ones that were the product of adulteress affairs, resulted in scandal.

So what's the best result, that of 1919 or 2019? 

It's certainly the case that in 1919 the law backed marriage up and in fact required it in certain ways.  The divorce rate was low, and fault was required for divorce.  Children born in to the circumstance of that which was about to be that of the seventh Blinn child were much lower.   The law may appear to have been harsh in some ways, but were the results less harsh?