Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-12-24
Volume VI$;;;a;::;;a;Number 81,

Mr.. zepor said he had but little to say on the subject
be knew but little about it. But he wished to have the
graiihcstion of having pass. the Senate He hoped
the bill would pass upon lis merits. He how
Of the constitutional scrupes relative divorces by
the Legis allure.
Mr.. EdmoIsion did know why the motion was
made unless there desire TO tomahawk the bill II
the gentlemen DESTROYS to show their disapprobson
Of Leg sative divorces they could show
at any oher time. He wished TO hear remarks
Mr.. Orb said il would be better have referepce
msde-ihat full exposition of The doctrines Of divorces
might be given. Ii the gentlemen, however, were dis
posed grant such divorces the several applicants could
be put into general BILL and all benefited at
MIR. Ellis made his motion in good faith. He was op-
posed TO Leg saye divorces Our State courts per
haps liberal in granting divorces than any in the
Union and generally liberal BY that means notice
is TO the opposite party which is not the IN an
application the legislature He certainly should
against all legislative divorces, aud on constitutional
grounds.
Mr.. Davis remarked If this the first application for
divorce, Senators might discuss the question: and enter
tam doubts its consitutionay IL Senator got up
here and ST ted his belief in the facts charged he 10
be beleved and he asked if Senators prepared to
vote against bill under such circumstances.
Mr. Robinson said be thought these matters rather Of
the Buncombe order be be eved he knew something e
constitutional law. Il decided by courts, that
marriage civil aud carried with all the
rights Of property. He believed legislative divorces
constitutional. While he bad in the Senate. he
would pay regard for his oath than to vote for spy
such He knew any petition fO divorc-,
but good given. if the petition
be believed He asked no further testimony IN this Parcu
lar before the Senate its Justice than the
word Of Mr. Zenor but could for it, for the
sons given.
Mr.. Edmonston did not wish to enter into constiu-
tiona argument IL there constitutional obi
to these kind of measures the question would have bern
settled long ago by the action of the legislature and the
seal Of condemnation set upon it but the contrary
/ known to be the case
by the constitution viewed a civil contract He
believed that all contracts, relating 10 realty should be
duced to writing by the Statutes He wished TO know
whether this Contract real a personal one. II
mixed, be presumed the constitution bore upon part
only of the contract and the legislature might upon
The other
Mr.. Orh said it a civil contract. If the legislature
has right TO annu a he presumed the legisla
ture could make contract Upon that presumption be
offered 5 amendment, that - and - of Tippeca-
county, should be bound in the hsnds of matrmony
They both poor and DESTROYS of marriage, far
he knew but he presumed the Senate would consent fol
of economy He knew nothing Of those persons
named in his amendment; bat he presumed they wished
to be married. He knew nothing of the persons named in
the BILL could he them 10 separate them He knew
nothing of the real of the husband but should he
tndy, without hearing both parties, ard drive perhaps
an innocent and sPOtess character upon The cold world
The legislature might do injustice it should be careful
following bad preCedents setting example Tor future
action He thought it nex pedient legsa,e upon th'
subject. Why should the legislature upon divorces
Is no, the action Of the courts Of The Stale sufficiently
ample The courts open to a-hey open to thI
high and the low. He would offer his amendment IL
serOusness-he only drew il up to show the absurdiy
rendering null civil contracts. II the Senate would per
sis, in granting the passage of such bills he would
mend the enbodyng Of all bills Of the kind in one bill, a
matter of economy in printing the laws. To print ih'
divorce bills Of last winter. il cost some $500.
Mr.. Davis said the question Of economy, it wa
expense to the people grant yOces in he courts
the State AS to the consutienay of legislative divor
ces, let that be tested 10y the proper tribunals. If lh
gentlemen were DESTROYS Of testing it, let indictment b
had, and his word for conviction would follow undo
the constitution laws AS to the expense that was M
question for the legislature The legislature not 4
decide who should be heard and who heard. IL wa
said the other branch Of the legislature had sgnied dis
position against divorces That rule of action 70
the Senae-it should nfuenre the action Of Senator
they had TO act according their opinion oil their duy
The question ihen taken. and the ayes and noe
being called. resulted follows:
AYEs-Mcssrs. Ailison Bradbury, Chcnpwi,h, Conner
Ellis, Goodenow, HaDer, Hamrick, Logan, Marsh Morgan
Murphy, Orb, Robinson, Stewart, Veihrikc-l6
NOEs-Messrs. Beard, Berry Of Franklin, Berry q
Monroe, Bowers. Clements, Colin, Davis, Day, Edmon
ston English, Green, Handy, Hardin, Holloway. Howell
Jackson Miller Migsn. Milliken, Montgomery, Osborn
Parks. Read, Rockhill, Simpson. Stockwe, Taber, Wa
tiers, Zenor-29 not referred.
The Senate adjourned.