New-York daily tribune., 1859-12-30
MIR. WM p. CLAIMING ON DIVORCE.

To he Editor Of Then y. Tribune
SIR: Your paper of Nov. 25 contains letter ad-
dressed by me to The Boston Atlas, on the law Of
Marriage and Divorce existing in the Eastern and
Western States with your structures thereon.
Your criticism falls heaviest what you consider
violation of contract, in applying an insOyent law OF
Divorce TO failure in marriage
In my published letter, had forborne the discussion
Of the question of Contract. l will, therefore, very
briefly reply to your remarks on this subject, without
opening, except incidentally, any of the ground COW
cred by my previous letter.
The principle of Contract is paramount in our exist
ing commercial civilization bargain is the highest
sanction recognized by the popular conscience. Que
of the most dangerous deusons Of our people is the
belief that the laws of Nature and of Right can be ds-
posed Of by compromise covenant.
1t is very necessary In other words mere and now,
to assert the natural limitations Ct the right of
tract II is impossible in great majority OF cases,
that the parties marriage can know each ether
SO thoroughly in advance, that they can decide, be.
yond mistake their present and fu ure fitness to each
other This fitness does not depend in the last result,
on the will, oor on moral discipline, bat on inherent
structure of mind and body.
contract to love another person in the future Is an
absurdty. contract 10 live in marriage with another
person. regardless of love, Is contract simply OF ply
steal relation, desecratDg the name of human Mar
rage Parties entering intelgently and religiousy
upon Marriage make 10 such contract with eaeh other
Inever did. When Society processes TO come in as
third party, and enforce against nature such contract
il should be set aside the ground that 1t Is an i'm
moral contract II / had not chosen 10 place myself
on the Western platform, would have made this issue
before the Massachusetts Courts.
1t is not a worthy comparison Of human Marriage to
liken it, as yon do TO contract for shilllngs Yet
if a contract is made for the payment Of shillings-
which is matter distinctly within the reach OF exter-
nal coyenant-and the debtor becomes unable to pay
the law provides nsoyentac by which he Is freed
In Marra. alone where the right Of contract is limited
and contingent there is release 10 the poor debtor
until death, from what is worse than thraldom.
Stated a moral question, repentance Is enIoned Tor
every other sn and wrong But for this worst otense
against human nature, repentance is forbidden, and
society practically constrans the unwilling parties TO
pou,e the sources of individual and social life.
There is another ground for release from the obiga-
tons of a contract, however good it may be- which
is failure to fulfill it's conditions. II, you imply, the
contract Of marriage does " not contemplate mere
animal relation but also moral and spiritual rea-
honship between the parties il could justly be set
aside for failure in these higher conditions That It
not 20 set aside in York evidence Of the nature
of contract in the eye Of the law.
Marriage is not created by the laws Of either Massa-
chusetts or Indiana, but is merely recognized and reg
ulaed by them The form Of contract technically i'm
posed upon it, cannot reach its foundation IN human
nature nor Justify any violation of natural law.
Ee,r- York Nov a. 1853. WM. y. CLAIMING.