New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-03-18
MINORITY REPORT.

Shs ppSersncd ipory Of the COnnttse Divorces 70
1hoA paying BE- divorced from husband Horace B.
Of JsS S dss ssSss Of hs oesoasr snd s:y
ether papers relating te the sPpLesaon msnt'aea ees'
That sfnT careful examination Of the various papers
m the ease he has iound himself unable 10 COZ cur IN
the action of the COG Iptsee IN reporting bill IN he-
ec6aBce with the prayer OF tne petitioner, for tue fol-
bwing among other asons:
The petitioner, Emily J.. Fry, charges her bustand
with sseaIDg at and cusirg her on VaIJns occalnsi
with having treated her at other times with great per-
sonsl violence; with having ODen seized ana sung her
hom chair, and with haviog tEice t1ro"h CD -iis a.
her; indeed with having carried bis violence % BQch
en- extent az 10 have caused hemorDage of Tue unRs.
Other acts Of almost eqae Onrage are AGO set foth
In her petit on in that while At public MOTEL, on their
Wedding tour at West Poiat, he locked thei. room
door TO shoot her. cursed aud az her
Tor 81 me 40 hOms and on another occEsiOn m the
city Of their residence, he Informed her that il she
said another w0rd on a certain Subject he would shoot
her without hesitation telling her his te D2er was 90
upeoyInAbe that be vas not Responsible FOR bis ac-
tone that be then lock tDe door, went 20 his trunk,
took out pistol and pointing it at his WIFE said be
would shoot her.
ward her referred 10 in the petition, oil Of which,
taken toy when il is remembered that they are
charged with having been perpetrated within the
abort space of ore month after Garrlsgel present
oase Of marital cruelty and barbary almost without
spaSael.
To AL these charges, Mr.. Fry responds by an m
qualified and circumstantil denial, under osth. Had
Mrs. Fry furnished any evidence to sustain her
charge the case would have beer embraced so con-
plet1y within the jurisdiction conferred upon the
Conrs by act of Assembly, that the very strength Of
the sveroo would prove the necessary defeat OF the
application az proofs OF such acts Of tyranny and
buslty could fail to satisfy any Court az Jury
that the condition Of wife, subjected 10 suGh ntigui
ties 10 her person. would be indeed rendered lntosi,
able, and her life burdensome even If they did
not endspger it's existence.
No Oua can dOubs. for moment that woman
subjected 10 such bsrbsrous treatment as is alleged,
might abandon her husbands home, aud successfully
appeal 70 our legal tribunals for relief from his do
miniop.
To the Courts alone, however, can she appeals
under the Constitution OF Pennsylvania, the Legisla.
tnre are expressly pIecnded from the confederation OF
such q case as Mrs. Fry presents BY the l4th Sec
top of the LIST Article Of the Constitution Of Pennsy
vsss it s provided, That the Legislature sh al not
shave power TO enact laws arnullpg the contract OF
"mArisge in any case where, by Law, the Courts OF
this Commonwealth are, or may hereafter De- en-
"ptvsred 10 decree divorce.
IL Mrs. FMS allegations are true, or il she can
prove them by ner Osn showing, inc Courts OF law,
under the Constitution, are the proper tribunals fot
Der to invoke; If they are not true, or cannot be
proved on what principle Of Law or morality, or Of
ssmmob sense could the Legislature found decree of
divorced
undtr this view of the law, in simply recommending
that the prayer Of the petitioner be refused. Bot 1t
voald doing entire a tice TO di,niss c4se IN
this summary manner, which has excited so much in
ttreet As the merits o. the esbOratey ar.
quad BY the counsel selected tom esdue members OF
the profession, not only OF own, but of as;er
Btsas) who persotted TO address the Committee,
and is to be prceuG ed that every view, both IN f>-
vor Of granting the prayer Of the Petitioner and OF re-
fspg It. was presented for their consideration, It msy
set be considered ont Of place 10 comment upon the
Intrinsic merits Of the case, as presented oy the petit
tons, answers and accompanying documents.
To the vsrous acts OF insult, cruelty, aud personal
snaOad Inv EIv ~ have beeU COmmltte1
by her husband he has ihterposed positive denis,
under oath. No single one Of them Yves proved. IL
vas Only attempted 10 be proved that he had sent,
alopy mously, 20 her fathers house, paper contain
ng reflections upon the petitioner; tue eendipg OF
which MIR. Fry proves wac by third party, unknown
TO him, and without any knowledge or desire on hls
part Mr.. Fry also produced evidence that about the
same time, nay, on the very day, Mr. Fry wss pos
only solcitous but successful 10 snppressng the pub
hcston, In another New-York psper, OF omeThGt
siniisr reflections upon the conduct OF his wife when
~ Wet Point, although the article alluded to wss an
emphatic condemnation OF her conduct, ana justin
cation of his own.
Another Of her allss the affair at the wharf
at Philsdelphs-bas also been disprovsd by BIN by
afhdavits which seem conclusive. II was however,
for her to prove the grounis, If the apple son were
true and not for him 20 oisprove them at lesst not
vsiii effort had been made by the petitioner to
substaptiaie her asseriiOn.-wh,ch Ars Fry has pot
done in sry spgle particular. In fact no substantial
effort has been made 10 advocate t1e divorce On the
res Urged on quite other grounds, to report "a Jaror
Of tie petitioner,
Before iu,t,ier aIuson to these, it might be well to
call attention TO evidence brought 10 the notice o yOGc
Committee within few days past, ard which has no:
been presented to the House. or prn ed tor IT, pc
rusal
In the memorial of Mr.. Grigg. he states tast he
can prove by highly respectable c'izen of Phia-
"6elphia.r that DIR. Moore Of West Point "has dis
tmcty stated 10 that citizen that he attended Mrs.
Fry for hemoIrhsse NON the ungs, tat tis las tte
n Asr. mi Az Mr. Err, nlu
swears that he has been 80 Informed. DR.. NJ ore
ststes il letter Forwarded 10 the Committee, that he
Informed the citizen alluded TO- that be was called 70
see Mrs. by, who, u ras sad, had hemorrhase OF
the lungs"
The ass rtop Of DR.. Moore himself seeIns to be, in
the absence Of any other evidence than hesrsay,'
the better evidence OF what he stated on the occasion
Ieisuee. HE letter cou,Iedictirg the assertions OF
Mr.. Griggs Informant would scarcely have BEEN writ
ten had be believed MIs Fry lSbOTIng under the very
dams eIous nalady alluded H..
Within few dsys past Mr.. Fry has placed in pos
Of your Committee the strongest tsstimon ais
from those in whose employ be has been for years
OF Of good character, but of hat oi6ty of tenn
per 20 wei caculsted TO render married LIE one Of
ishcity. Ihst such man should be guilty OF the
almost 6encisb acts charged upon hin, should not be
bthsyea without some testimony sustain slee .tons
% i'm probable II not incredible.
Haa the charges Of cruelty q, West Point, made by
toe petitioner against Der husband been well iouoied
nis scarcely 20 be- supposed that she voui have
desired 10 pfoOcg bridal tour iosuspciolsy con-
meresd attoe Phlsdephia w5sTf. Yet yow Commit
tee have had presented to their notice tee evidence OF
an nnhopeschsd witness that their stay was prolonged
by the request Of Mir Grigg at the solicitation OF the
petitioner, and cortrsry 20 the desire Of Mr. Fry;
although Mr. Giigg stated IS early as August . a
what many who have examined this case vii admit
that West Point was 80 place unfit for a young mar
ned woman" ~ appears from this wit1ess taat, at
che time Mrs. Fry alleges she was threatening 10
rite 10 her father 10 come for her, she was begging
him TO allow her to remain Wsst PosDt-sl,bongh,