SELFISH INTENTIONS - K-REx - Kansas State University
SELFISH INTENTIONS - K-REx - Kansas State University
SELFISH INTENTIONS - K-REx - Kansas State University
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
using her capital (plus a $70 contribution that Downing had obtained from his father), she<br />
opened a butcher shop in Clay Center. For a year – that is, both before and after their December<br />
1896 wedding – Downing “slaughtered the cattle, carried the carcasses, cut the beef, bought the<br />
beeves and kept shop in order while plaintiff took charge at the close of each day of cash<br />
proceeds of the business and financed the venture generally.” 147 In his countersuit, Downing<br />
also revealed a rather bizarre arrangement, given that they were officially husband and wife:<br />
Susanna paid him $25 per month for his efforts in the butcher shop and provided “board and<br />
lodging.” When the butcher shop closed, Downing then went back to work on the farm, in<br />
order, he said, “to improve the plaintiff’s property.” 148<br />
Indeed, perhaps the most striking aspect of Downing’s countersuit was his consciousness<br />
of the vast differences in the property owned by his wife versus his own economic standing. He<br />
noted, for example, that he had taken a job working as a section hand for the Rock Island<br />
Railroad in 1898, and had contributed all of his wages from this period of time, $154, to the<br />
family treasury. He was concerned that his financial contributions had allowed his wife to<br />
purchase hogs, valued at $60, that she now owned. He complained that his wife had kept several<br />
pieces of furniture that he acquired before the marriage that he valued at $50. In contrast to his<br />
own poor standing, Downing noted that his wife owned the property where the family resided,<br />
valued at $1500, and also possessed a mortgage on three houses in Broughton valued at $3000,<br />
as well as horses, cows, farm implements, and other personal property valued at $500. All that<br />
he had was, literally, the clothes on his back: he had been “correct in his habits, economical in<br />
expenditures and zealous in his efforts to promote the financial interests of said plaintiff and now<br />
147 Ibid.<br />
148 Ibid.<br />
65