Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1866-01-30
QDglo Statesn1arr,
ITTOH IHU OIHUIHHHVI N""VVVV'T
The Strong Divorce Trial.

The Strong Divorce AriaI'
This trial has terminated by disagree
ment of the jury, leaving all the unhappy
issues standing as they were, with the ad-
ditional bitterness created by the acrlmon-
ious contest, and the shame OF publicity to
the world. 1t would seem that some moral
ought to be drawn from this affair TO make
compensation for so disgusting an exposure,
but there are many questions relating to
the morality of all the parties on which they
disputed, and which were undecided by the
court, and which, therefore, it would be
! improper for us to assume as facts to point
a moral.
4 The shame of bringing on such trial is
recognized by the attempt of each party to
charge the responsibility for it on the other.
Strong charges that the wife drove him to it
by claiming an equal division of the two
| children. She relies on her maternal feel
ings and rights for her justification in this
claim, and charges him with pursuing
cruel claim to both the children. 10 retain
possession of one she took flight with it;
and to escape legal process TO take 1t from
her, her place of stay is secret known only
| to her counsel
Strong sets up the high moral plea that
he could not leave his children in the hands
of guilty woman, to have their young
miRds contaminated. The plea has high
moral tone, and the husband who makes it
has the advantage that no matter how gull
ty he may be he does not regard himself as
a contamination. Yet in his theory OF the
case he processes to have undertaken at first
to continue ostensiDle relations with her
for the sake of the children. Could he not
have consented to let one remain with her
to avoid this terrible exposure? And in
deciding this question in his own heart,
where the hypocrisy of outward morality
is of no avail, and naked justice appeals to
the conscience could he not have reflected
that this woman, if guilty of all, was no
more of a contamination than he, save in
the different condemnation that society pro-
nounces on woman; that the difference was
not in her but in the world, and that this
injustice of the world did not affect her in
ner nature.
On his claim to both the children, to save
them from contamination by guilty moth
er, Strong iustiiies himself tor bringing this
suit that tastens upon these young girls the
stigma of dishonored mother. Was this
a nice regard for their welfare? On this
plea this moral ulcer has been laid bare to
the world, aud each party has striven to
make foul the other.
There are certain features in the origin
of this marital misery that the mind nat
urally revcrts to, and that we may NOR
| dllIe upOH WlJUOuJ pTDnOuuCllS upOl
any disputed questions OF the guilt of either
party.
Strong was brought up in wealth, with
out any aim in lite. He had an income of
four thousand dollars; enough to raise him
above the necessity of application to busi-
ness, and not enough to support an eSta6-
lishment such as he aspired to. He was
vain and frivolous. He married, aud pre-
feTred to take his young wife to his mothers
establishment rather than to make home
in the more moderate one that his income
would sapply. The lack of sympathy be-
tween the king and the heir apparent who
comes from another branch Of the family
is not more certain than that between the
husbands sisters and his wife.
She was without home, neglected by hel
husband, and finding none of that sympa-
thy and affection in his mother and sisters
that would satisfy the yearnings of wo-
mans heart. The treacherous brother gave
those attentions that her husband neglected
and proifered sympathy and affection
where all others were cold. Their inditfer-
ence enlarged his opportunities, and ever
appears like an indifference to her ruin
Aud when it was accomplished their mora
sense seems to have been excited only
against her. This lack of feeling in all tht
StrOngs against the man who hal done hin
|
other, is one of the revolving features o
this affair. E... .
Had this husband heart capable OF en-
ioying the affections and independence of g
nome such as his means could furnish, h'
would now have had those in place OF hi
domestic shame. But to suppose that is tC
suppose him another man. Yet he is but 1
specimen of the order OF men that wealth
and fashion is turning out in great mum
bers, and his exposure has only laid barr
one of the concealed ulcers in the domestic
relations that such training creates.
Another of the repulsive features OF thi
case is the use of the woman's confessions
of her guilt to convict her in the trial; con
fessions obtained from her under the eX
element OF religious feeling, stimulated By
sympathetic religious eXhortations, work
ing upon feelings humbled, remorseiul ant
grateful for the supposed forgiveness of he
husband; aud perhaps eXaggerating he
own guilt in her penitence and remorse
unmindful that the confessions which sh
made as ii they were to that Being betor
whom all are unworthy, were to be use,
against her in court according to their lega
value.
The revolving fact, which appears to b
sustained by the testimony, that this lus
band required his wife to submit to tn
procurement of an abortion as condition
OF his forgiveness, gives it the element
that, exhibited on the stage in their tru
character, would combine the features of
horrible melodrama. r
The publication of this trial has been re
pulsive, not that any repelled the readin
OF it, but for the revolving features it ex
hibited. But it has not presented immoral
ity in any seductive shape. No one will
feel any temptation to follow the course Q
Al ~,
will envy the state of society that bring
forth such horrors.