New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-11-25

10 Nitrate TO Indiana for the purpose Of there OBJ
tanning dissolution Of his Massachusetts, mar
r;age 70 Massachusetts wife. He vii not pre-
tend that the law of Massachusetts, by which she
required him 70 abide il any ssverer other than
that which be invoked 10 sanction and dignity niS
uui0p with biz Massachusetts wife. Had he seen
1T to contract so Indiana marriage, be was al si
times left by Massachusetts at Liberty to do 80. de
chose. however, to contract Massachusetts mar
riage. and row chooses to annul it by an Indiana
divorce. If be had Massachusetts, contract run
sing, whereby some one had bound himself to pay
him the said Claiming forty thousand Massachusetts
shilinqs. and the debtor were now to tender hlm
forty thousand Indiana or New-York shilhngs and
demand that they be received 10 full satisfaction OF
said contract, Mr.. Claiming might not see the
iastice Of that demand. He would thus be in the
same category wherein his letter places Us with ne
gard 10 his treatment OF Massachusetts, and his
former wife.
But Dir ChsnniDg's personal attitude is Of little
public consequence in comparison with bis gross
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. least, bis gross misstatenent-
Of the Law Of Marriage prevailing in Massachusetts,,
these laws do not contemplate mere "animal
"relation" between husband and wife. On the
contrary, they render Marriage indissOluble with
the sole and obvious intent Of precudng such degra-
dation of the Divinely ordained union Of one man
with one woman. If the laws allowed the dissolu-
ton Of marriage at the pleasure Of the parties-
and even, % Mr.. Claiming plainly contends, OF one
Of the pares-it is clearly impossible to distinguish
between true marriage and q mere animal re-
'atOn." D an aud woman, sufficiently pleased
with each others persons but having no higher, no
hOlier affinity, choose to live together while, by
way Of experiment, and so are married. Next
year, next month, or next week, they become tired
of each other or one Of them fsIcies that be or she
can make a more advantageous arrangement with
some one else 80 they separate, are divorced, and
take new partners respectively. How this would
differ save in the payment Of one fee to clergy
man OF justice for performing the marriage cere-
mony and another to a lawyer for procuring the
divorce, from the temporary arrangements for mu-
tua housekeeping which lbertine men and women
now make without benefit of clergy, we are unable
TO understand. The experience of the human race,
from ancient Asia down through Imperial Rome to
modern Hayti, proves that the marriage which may
be- dissolved at pleasure is just no marriage at all,
and soon loses the little respect required to render
if decent screen for mere animal appetite.
Mr.. Charming has of course right TO
argue that the law of Massachusetts, recognizes
" only the animal relation that such Is It's ten
dency and necessary effect-but be has no right to
impute purpose which is strenuOusly disclaimed.
He ought to know that no advocate OF lndissolube
Marriage, 10 law upholding such Marriage, con-
templates or is content with mere bodily union.
The great end aimed at in requiring that Marriage
shall be Indissouble is true VITAL spiritual union.
The touchstone applied to candidates for the con-
secration of their union through loyal marriage is
essentially this: "Do you, A. B., know this wo-
Imam, C. D., so thoroughly, so intimately, and
thence love her so deyotedly, so truly, that you
can conscientiously promise to be faithful to each
" other so long as you both shall hvei" If the
parties do not so thoroughly know, and thence so
devotedy love each other that they can safely make
this PROMISE then they have right to be married,
and are recklessly trng with the hottest interests
and profaning the most sacred relations in present
ing themselves as candidates for matrimOny. If
they are in doubt as TO their fitness for this Divine
relationship why do they not wait till that doubt
shall have been solved The State does not hurry
nor force them into matrimOny; if they marry I'M
prepared the fault is their owns SO is the blame;
and so should be the penalty. They have no right
TO east the burden of their own sins on Society,
they seek to do in clamoring for divorce.
We have thus dealt with this matter from q
strictly public or general standpoint letting Mr..
Claiming state his OWL case and assuming none
other than admitted as obvious facts. OF Mr..
Claiming apart from this business, we know nOught
but good, and cherish for him none other than the
kndest feelings. We believe be is sadly msled with
regard to Marriage and Divorce, and that be is
using whatever character and influence he may have
to draw Others into the same pernicOus and penlous
deluEiOn. Personally, be may be a worthy son OF
most worthy and honored sire; but we feel sure
that Massachusetts, would never have been so great
so honOred, prosperous so influential for good
she is, had her founders and legislators cherished
and acted on Mr.. ChanniDgs notions of Marriage
and Divorce.
|
A NEW MEDICAL DISCOVERY.