Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1849-02-21
From the Indiana COURIER.

l was N favor of the change OF law refer
red 10. and calculated TO produce the same
impressions on the minds Of his readers
have thought il right to offer some ex-
plantations thereon. His holding me to
be MS "ioe." as he does in his remarks
. yet for what cause | cannot tel, for
have never - nv knowledge injured him
in word or deed) must account for his
remarks; for cannot harbor the though;
that however low and debased he may
hold me ia his estimation, he really be-
lieves his own ns;nuations. Il, however.
there should be even one individual
amongst his numerous readers that actu-
ally believes. as he processes 70, | should
feel myself deficien, in my duty were
mot 10 make an effort at least, 10 correct
such an impression.
+ believe marriage 20 be not only civil
but div ne institution, extending during
the life of the parties entering into the
covenan;. and that it ought in no case to
be annuled. except for the cause Of adult
tery.-al other causes being prohibited
by our Savior and his Apostles. II is true
that the -iy. laws allow our Courts - de-
cree divorces tor other causes. But 10
all such laws | am opposed. believing
that they are not only anfi-chrlstian. but
impolitic, as all anti-christian laws are
Such laws have u tendency 10 cause the
marriage covenant to be more lightly cs-
tcemed amongst the people, both before
and after entering into that state. and thus
producing the very cases which our laws
recognize as sufficient for our Courts to
decree divorces upon. If our laws re-
speeding divorces were founded on the
doctrines of the Bible, and such as put
away their wives, except for the one cause
and marry others. were by law accounted
adulterers. | believe that nine tenths or
more, of the causes now existing for
which divorces may be applied for and OBJ
tanned, would cease to exist
In respect to the power of the Legisla-
ture to grant divorces it IS still more OBJ
iactionabic than in Courts of law Such
divorces are granted upon the petition of
the applicant. and are applied for in that
way. either 70 save expenses, or because
the facts will not warrant our Courts in
dccreeing divorces.
The late session Of our Legislature has
been more exemplary in this respect than
many previous ones. am not certain
that a single BIZ finally passed both Hou-
ses: but having been sick and confined to
NV c!ldiDDGT lOI Sttc! III VI INT last NuNS
of the session. | cannot speak positively
as to that But at the time of offering the
resolution referred to- the Senate had Just
passed two divorce bills for no other cause
but simply desire to be divorced. One
Of the cases did, however. give Is a rea-
SON. as set forth in the petition. that he the
petitioner, was married 10 the lady when
only about sixteen years Of age. she being
Al. - 81, l.,
together twenty years as husband and
wife,-but, that as she was now old he
wished to pu.. her away. prayed the Leg
islature to grant hiii divorce, &c. 10
nv mind. at least, this amounted 70 not1-
ing more than a desire to be divorced, a
the difference in their ages at the present
time is no greater than it was on the day
of their marriage. The other was a case
of mutual desire between the parties to
be divorced. Both husband and wifi,
signed the petition. 1t was Immediately
after the passage of these bills, both of
which voted against. that | offered the
resolution referred to. do not pretend
70 Justify the movement in every respect. u
1t was done hastily and without due re-
Election. | felt indignant at the action Of
the Senate. and thought and intended to
call the attention of Senators to what they
had done; having. as viewed it at the
time and still do. granted divorces for no
better causes than those contemplated bv
the resolution. | know, as does every
one else. that they could mol change the
divine law if they would. and that they
,rould not change the civil law if they
could as respects the nature of the mar
riage covenant, and if they reported at
all. they must report against the expedi-
encv of doing SO. and thus condemn their [
own acts. or the acts of the Senate. This
is what had in view, and nothing else. in !
the little time had to think on the subject
| confess that the resolution. without any ;
eypanafio or preamble. setting forth l
the action Of the Senate has an unlavora-
bic appearance. Such preamble | |
knew at the time ought to have accompa-
MED it. but had not time to write one {
and offer the resolution before the Senate
would have passed to other business | {
depended on the facts of the action of the
Senate. and the resolution following i'm
after them being the explana-
ton. not considering or thin king that the l
cause of the divorces would not be repor-
ted or appear on the journals. The sub
ec. is. however. explained in part at least
by the reporter of the State Sentinel. bat
in the Journal it is as flat footed as might
have been expected. =
1t appears that my old friend D. p. Hol-
oway has also published and commented
upon the resolution. Does he also hold
me as his '.foe' or enemy1 | cannot be-
ieve that he does; hence l am entire
" at loss to account for reason that
should induce him to write as il appears
he has. Perhaps he knows, and | have
no right TO. which if it be so. it is sulfi-
cent for me. only wish TO ask him if he
remembers the case of Senator from
one Of the eastern counties of the State
with whom he is about as well acquainted
as he is with his fathers youngest son,
presenting bill to the Senate. divorcng
another very honorable Senator from his
"a h., -. go nAfar -