New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-12-24
Remarks.

are now as happy and contented IN Aef mar
rage relations as their own natures will allow;
because We believe that marriages are now
contracted with very general undertaking
that they are practically indissoluble-thas
nothing short of death or the deep demoniza-
ton and lasting nfamy Of one Of the parties
can ever dissolve them. But let it be nder
stood that marriages may be dissolved When
ever the parties are tired Of each othc-Gd
we can conceive no essential modification Of
cur present system which will not amountpnc-
tical,v to this-and we believe more false
than true marriages would be contracted; be-
cause libertines would resort 70 marriage |,
cloak for their lecherous designs, which IT,
legal penalties of Bigamy and Adultery nov
compel them to pursue by more circuitou
and less shaded path. Apprise sensualists that
they may at any time be rid Of the obligation
of Marriage by simply dishonoring theu-snl
if Mr.. James does not intend this, we cannO
understand him-and thousands would incu
those obligations with deliberate intent
throw them off whenever they should be toun
irksome-as, with their appetites, they al
morally certain soon to become. Weinsist, the
that what Mr.. James intends or contemplate
may be ever so innocent and practically jul
without at oil discharging his proposition OF d
responsibility Of such use as the carnal and
principled would inevitably make Of it. A
this use we determine by the ruin theyar n
too often enabled to effect through the inf
ence of the sophism that the ceremony Of mi l
rage is of no account where the essential MI
rage of heart and soul has already taken plae
We determine it also by the demoralizatY
and degeneracy of the Romans, especially th
Patricians, following closely on the heels Of thS
Liberty of Divorce accorded by their law in
the last days of the Republic. We find i'o
that the most hasSant social disorders vrs
diffused and aggravated in France by the Lib
erty of Divorce accorded during the phrsuy
of the first Resolution. In short, we beGro
this Liberty always did create or immens!
inflame such disorders wherever it has ben
legalized, and We think it always must DO ~
at least, until the Human Race shall have ben
very differently trained and developed frn
aught the world has yet seen. II there ever
shall come a time when the whole Race til
profoundly realize that Lewdness, with 81
transgressi0n of the laws of God, is ruiDas
mistake, destructive Of the happiness Of DO
transgreGsor, there will then be no need Of Au'
man laws or penalties, and they may be ds
pensed with altogether. But 90 long % the
shall exist Social necessity for intsrdicgl
and furnishing Murder-wLich we reckon
be rather longer than either Mr.. Jamesa
our writings will continue to be read-so
We believe there will be necessity for pu
ing Seduction and Adultery and forbiddinas
vOrce.
We contend that Mr.. Jamess Libcra
Divorce, no matter what his intent msyk
what hedges ho might seek to set sbat
would practically open to the licentiou%
tickle prospect of Kidding themselvesda'
obligations of Marriage at pleasure -Ws'
say to them, "Get married, If that vIaF
serve the ends of To-Day; and you nes"
unmarried again Tomorrow, or a. ~
you shall think proper" And we repdM'
Andrews's queries and well understs1 pa'
ton as most significant and pertinent, 'n'us
as they do to still larger (or looser) bDen!
than Mr. James contemplates. Ones sdn/
Divorce on Mr.. Jsmes's basis, and Il WIZ
utterly impossible to confne it within biz LID
its.
Mr.. James should have quoted the laws
Vermont and Connecticut If he wishes 70 p
them in evidence as to the benefcent oper
ton Of more liberal system of Divorce. wei
are not aware Of any material difference "
tween those laws and ours, nor Of anything "
boast of in the morality of those States " y
lecting this dispute. A State Like New-fon
with half its population concentrated in sHS
and villages, and receiving large annual sccss
sions Of the restless from all parts Of the worA ,
will naturally have larger proportion Of io0s
livers than q Mountain State like Verincu
but we perceive nothing in this which s1oS'
affect the present controversy.
Our own consiction and argument decidess
favor indissoluble Marriage any eA'sa l
law to the contrary notwithstanding be',
the express words Of Christ, which seem ~
NIT Adultery as valid ground Of Divorces
should stand distinctly on the Roman Ca's
ground of No Divorce except BY Death. A.
is, We do not object to Divorce for the one
grant and gross violation Of the marriage COW
nant, though we should oppose even TIA.
did not seem to be upheld by the personal
thority ofChrist. Beyond it, we are iOne,.s