Litchfield enquirer., 1868-06-18
Divorces.

Christian Ministers of all denominations are calling on our Legislature to restrain the freedom of divorce practiced under our present law They argue that the para mount divine law requires the marriage re- lation to be permanent one, whereas our State statistics show that about one tenth of the people married are afterwards divorced. Certainly so great proportion is highly discreditable; nevertheless, we are convinc- ed that the clergy of Connecticut are ask ing its legislature to do an unchristian thing.
 Before Me marriage relation is made nort permanent .a should De made more just.
 Let us briefly set forth few of the worst features of our present code of laws on that subject: -~-,
 l. A married woman, guilty of infidelity, is punished by imprisonment in the States Prison not Jess than two years. A married man, guilty of inidelity, (except with a married woman) is punished by fine no erceeding seven dollars, or by Imprisonment in the common jail not ecceedi,g thirty days!
 2. The husband can in this State convey away all his real estate without his wife's consent, and cut her of, at his death, from every cent of his property. In no other State in the Union can this be done!
 3. While the wife has no right to any portion of her husbands property during his life, and may be cut off from any DOT tion of his estate after his death, the hus- band immediately on the marriage takes possession of all her property and keeps possession during his life, only giving over the principal thereof to her or her heirs on his death. ..
 4. The property which may be acquired by their joint exertions during wedlock be- longs to the husband alone, she having no legal interest therein whatsoever.
 5. The children, fruit of the marriage, be- long to the husband, not to the wife. In case of separation, he is entitled to their custody.
 The only remedy at present open to mar ried women against laws reducing them to a condition nearer slavery than freedom, is divorce. We are not surprised, therefore, that two thirds of the divorces granted in this State, are granted to wives, who have thus obtained restitution of their own pro- perty. control of their own children, aRl a share of their own earnings. 4
 How is it then that while there is an out cry from every pulpit against the wicked ness of the Connecticut divorce law, we have yet to hear of the minister of Christ who has complained of the wickedness of the Connecticut marriage law? We think there are several reasons: In the first place the clerical mind is highly conserva- tive; the evils of divorce are new, the evils of marriage, old; hence it sees the former, and not the latter. Moreover, when things go wrong, Conservatives always in cline, not to rehef but to repression Apo ve all, doctors of the divine law as vel as doctors of the municipal law are greatly prone to neglect tine spirit in rigid adhe renee to the letter, of their respective codes A most fragrant instance of this occurs il President Woolsey's articles on divorce il the New Englander He considers the English divorce statute the best because il is the strictest of all; yet the distinguish, ing characteristic of that law is that il grants the husband divorce for every in fidelity of the wife, while it practically de- nies her Q divorce for like crime on his part. We have seldom seen more stlikine evidence of the narrowing tendencies oi scholastic work in 8 semi-monastic insti- tuition! .=zzs=---.
 What is really needed is thorough re- modelling of our whole law of marriage and divorce. A woman tied to husband who has been guilty of ''such misconduct as permanently destroys her happiness is now in virtual slavery of a most revolting description. We believe that in such case full divorce is not unscriptural. If our ministers think differently, and the legisla- ture reverently decree that the ''irrepressi- ble conflict shall go on, at least let them unite the hands of the weaker party, and make the fight something nearer equal.
 
 E@PTha Democrncu hava haan irwin O