Judge Morning's letter

              WILLIAM M. MORNING
JUDGE

MINOR S. BACON
OFFICIAL REPORTER

DISTRICT COURT
THIRD JUDICIAL COURT
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA

[handwritten]
Feb [February] 20, 1922

Rudolph Umland,
Eagle, Neb [Nebraska]

My dear Rudolph: I must ask your pardon for my delay in answering your letter. The fact is I had not read Silas Marner for so long that I had almost entirely forgotten the details as to the relations of the different characters to each other. So I laid your letter aside until I could read the story again. I have been interrupted so much that I have just now finished it. Godfrey Cass was Eppie's father and, in the eyes of the law, even today, he would be [illegible] to the custody of Eppie, provided he was a fit person to have such custody, or had not, in some manner which the law would recognize as having that effect, relinquished or surrendered such rights to another, and provided it was for the best interest of Eppie to be with her father rather than with Silas Marner, or with some one [someone] else.

[Page 2]

Let us suppose that Godfrey Cass & Silas lived here in Lancaster County; that Eppie lived with Silas and all the other circumstances were just as they are given in the story. Suppose Godfrey demanded possession or custody of Eppie and Silas declined to give her up. Now if Godfrey desired to go to law over the matter he would probably apply to one of our district Judges for a writ of habeas corpus commanding Silas to bring Eppie with Court and show to the Court why he was holding Eppie away from her father. Silas would bring Eppie into court at the time specified in the writ of habeas Corpus, Godfrey, Silas would have their attorneys and Godfrey would provide his evidence that he was Eppies [Eppie’s] father, that he desired her custody and was prepared to care for her and support and maintain her in a suitable manner and in suitable environment. Silas would

[Page 3]

then show that the girl came to him infancy, that he had [illegible] for her and cared for her and loved her. That they had become attached to each other, that there was nothing in her surroundings, circumstances or method of bringing up that was inappropriate and that Godfrey had known all the while that she was his child yet never made the relationship known or asserted his right to this child until she was a young lady; that Eppie preferred to remain with Silas because she had always looked upon him as her father-at least the only one she had ever known, in order that she might repay, in his old age, the obligation she owed him. Upon such facts the court would, no doubt, return Eppie to Silas:

1. Because Godfrey had, in the fear of jiopordising [jeopardizing] his own love affair, Kept the relationship secret and permitted the burden of the care of the child to fall upon Silas when the burden was the heaviest, and had forfeited his claim as against the claim of Silas.

[Page 4]

2. That he had permitted Eppie to become attached to and to be placed under grave obligation to Silas.

3. That, on the whole, it would probably be to the best interest of the girl to remain with Silas.

From a materialistic stand point this last point is open to question, but if Godfrey was the right kind of father he would do the right thing by the girl, under any circumstances, and if he did not this would, I think, show that he was not fit to have her.

The right of a father to his minor children is only theoretical and yields to the superior claims of the state to see to it that the best interest of the child is practiced. In my juvenile court work I am daily asserting and enforcing the interest of 

[Page 5]

minor children as against the claims of parents even to the extent of taking the children from the parents and placing them with others, where I find that the interest of such children demand such action.

I hope this letter is not entirely too late to serve your purpose and that it may be of some use to you.

Very Truly Yours, 

W M Morning