The Minnesotian. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn. Territory) 1851-1852, 1852-03-06

Legislative interference well be questioned9
| Iflegislative bodies assume the exercise
of judicial powers, they should at least
not entirely disregard those obvious rules
of justice which every where govern the
courts of law.
Why should not Julia A. Hull have no
tice of this application for the dissolution
Of contract entered into between herself
and Abram Hull, the petitioner? Is it
not quite possible that she might have
something to allege in reply?
The facts complained of in the petition,
occurred in the State of Illinois, the par
ties were domiciled there, the petitioners
case properly belongs there; and is it not
clear, that if the person of the party against
whom the complaint is made is not subject
to our jurisdiction, any attempt to bind her
without such jurisdiction, and without
hearing or notice, would be extravagant?
The statute of this Territory, which
confers jurisdiction upon our courts in
applications for divorce, is certainly yery
liberal. 1t provides that for certain causes
divorces may be granted on the petition
of the party aggrieved, and that all per-
sons who shall have resided in the Terri
tory one year, shall be entitled TO the
benefit Of the act. The requirements are
moderate; and see nothing in the pa
pers accompanying this bill, even if full
force is given to the &c parte dispositions,
that presents a case of such heinous char
acter as to justify repeal in this special
instance of the reasonable restrictions of
the statute.
If the rule of our law is just, that no
divorce shall be granted, unless the party
applying therefor shall have resided in
this Territory one year Immediately pre-
ceding the time of exhibiting the COM
plant, is alleged obstinate, contrary,
self-willed, ill-tempered" department of
the wife, an occurrence of such rare cnor-
nifty as to demand legislative Intervention,
and an abatement Of the legal period of
residence?
Is the mere charge of desertion, of
which perhaps satisfactory explanation
might have been rendered, if proper no.
tice had been given; and the opinion of
certain deponenIs "that it frequently SEEM
ed to be her pleasure to annoy her hus-
band by doing what she knew he did not
approve" sufficient to warrant hasty pro-
ceedings, without notice, against hel pless
woman?
Though there is great variety of prac-
tice and opinion upon the subject of divor-
ces, the stronger authority and the better
policy is in favor of the stability of the
marriage union. Were it necessary, in
the present instance, additional reasons
might be urged against the propriety of
this act, in the revision to which all our
legislative enactments are subject from
the Congress of the United States, and the
embarrassing position in which the parties
might be subsequently placed, by Congress
annulling the enactment. An act of Con-
gross, OF May Is, 1926, disapproves and
annuls several acts passed by the Cover
nor and Legislative Assembly of the Ter
rttory OF Florida, granting divorces. The
passage OF this act, as well as the opinions
which were expressed at the time by lead
ing statesmen in debate, present an in
stance of strong national reprobation Of tl:e
practice Of granting Legislative divorces.
1t has been justly said that :'though in
particular cases the repugnance of the law
to dissolve the obligations of matrimonial
cohabitation may operate with great Sc
verify upon individuals, vet ii must be
carefully remembered, that the general
happiness of the married life is secured
by its indssolubility. When people un-
derstand that they must live together, ex-
ccpt for few reasons known to the law.
they learn to soften by mutual accommo-
dation that yoke which they know they
cannot shake off; they becnlne good hus-
bands and good wives, from the necessity
of remaining husbands and wives for ne
cessity is a powerful master in teaching
the duties which it imposes. If it were
once understood that upon mutual disgust
married persons might be legally separa-
ted, many couples who now pass though
the world with mutual comfort, with a.
tentlon to their common offspring, and to
the moral order of civil society, might
have been at this moment living in a state
of mutual unkindness, and in a state of
enlargement from their common offs pring.
In this case, as in many others, the hap
piness Of some individuals must be sac
riiced to the greater and more general
good.
'lftwo persons have pledged them
selves atthe altar of God to spend their
lives together, for purposes that reach
much beyond themselves, it is doctrine
to which the morality of the law gives no
countenance, that they may by private
contract dissolve the bands of this solemn
tic, and throw themselves upon society,
IN the underlined and dangerous characters
OF wife, without husband, and hus-
band without wife.
There are, undoubtedly, cases for
which separation is provided; but it
must be lawfully decreed by public au-
thority, and for reasons which the public
wisdom approves. Mere turbulence of
tcmner. nefulence of mnnnorS nE..4