Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-01-10
The Recent Divorce Case In New
XNuE Eaf


York City.
The Strong divorce trial, which has re-
Gently closed in New York city, is one of
the most remarkable cases in the annals of
welded woe" which the records of our
courts furnish to the world, and the daily
publication of its proceedings in the jour
mails of New York city excited great pub
lie interest and moved that rotten fabric
called New York society to its founda-
tons. The social standing of the parties
gave the case peculiar prominence. The
plaintiff Peter Strong, ESQ., was a man of
wealth, education and prominence, and
moved in the first circles of corrupt Man
haitian. The defendant, Mrs. MaryE Strong,
whose maiden name was Stevens, was the
daughter of the President of the First Ma
tionalBank of the City Of New ork, and one
of the w~ealthiost and most influential bust
ness men in the East while the man with
whom the defendant was charged with
having had criminal intercourse had been
prominent and active in religious and
benevolent enterprises. The nature of the
charge and of the defense was not less
remarkable. The husband charged upon
his wife no less a crime than that of adul-
tery with his own brother while the wife,
in answer, charges upon her husband the
crime of adultery with sundry women
whose names are mentioned in her re-
Spouse. And this extraordinary case has
been treated by the lawyers who
managed it IN a yet more extraor-
binary manner. Bad as were the
disgusting and infamous details it
seemed to be the delight of the adistin-
tinguished counsel to aggravate them by
their mode of conducting the trial. They
wrangled and black-guarded over this
pitiful scene of dome. tic misery and crime,
they gave each other the lie, they used
offensive and obscene language, as though
they were a couple of drabs engaged in a
drunken brawL. AT last this trial has
dragged its slow length along, through
weary days, through weary columns OF
daily reports, to its final close. The jury
has, after days of deliberation, announced
its disagreement, and all the unhappy
issues raised are left standing as they
were, with the additional bitterness caused
by acrimonious controversy and the addi-
tional shame caused by publicity to the
world. Tocap the climax some ofthejurors
are accused of being bribed to forget their
oath. So closes this dark record, in which
~insolence of n and obscenity of Ian
guage have been the least offensive fea-
lures, and which have been blackened by
incest, adultery, bribery and perjury.
The "clear points" of the case as stated
by the New York Times are:
l. Mr.. Strong asked a divorce.
O.. Mrs. Strong's guilt was unanimously
voted by the jury.
8. The jury decided unanimously that
there had been no forgiveness by Nh.
Strong.
4. Ten of the jurors decided that there
was no proof of the guilt of Mr.. Strong,
and two Jurors, taking the evidence Of
Mrs. Walsh and Mrs. Smith, disagreed.
8. The case was thrown up by the jury,
and the air is darkened by charges on the
part of plaintiff of improper procedure,
and by the defendant with charges against
the action of the Judge and the purity of
Tho jury.
The shame of bringing on such a trial
is recognized by both parties in their at
tempts to throw the responsibility for it
upon others. 1t seems to have been pre-
cipitated by the pride and arrogance of
the Strong and Stevens families, and both
are, we suspect, to blame for rushing into
open court with the horrible particulars
of their shame. The guilt and shame of a
daughter on the one hand, of a brother on
the other, and on both a just regard for
the reputation of innocent children in
whose veins the blood of both families
flowed should have restrained each from
vindictive haste to criminate and disgrace
the other.
And, when we pass to the consideration
of the merits of the case ITSELF we are
again compelled to decide that blame rests
upon the heads Of both. There can be no
doubt of the crime-the terrible, unnatural
crime-of Mrs. Strong. Nor is the deep
and damning infamy of her guilt at all
mitigated by her mode of defense. She
has seen fit to bring into court a counter
charge of adultery against her husband
which has not been sustained by the evil
dence and which we will not insult her
understanding by supposing that she be-
lieves. But the husband cannot shake off
the responsibility for much of this do
nestle misery. BE was brought up in
wealth and given a liberal education, but
found no active employment by which his
energies might find vent. He treated his
wife harshly and coldly, neglected her,
left her coldly to the treacherous kindness
of his brother, and thus prepared the way
for his own shame. And when it was con-
summated the means which he employs to
obtain her confession, and the use to
which it puts that confession are not the
least repulsive features of the case. The
confessions were obtained from her under
the excitement of religious feeling, slim
lated by sympathetic religious exhorta-
tions, working upon feelings humbled, re-
morseful and grateful for the supposed
forgiveness of her husband. And when
these confessions were fully ELECTED this
husband requires his wife to submit to an
abortion as a condition of his forgiveness
and after all this is done comes into court
and publishes his own shame, his wife's
infamy, his brothers monstrous and un-
natural crime, his childrcn's lasting dis
grace to all the world.