The southern enterprise. [volume] (Greenville, S.C.) 1854-1870, 1869-08-25

,LonssR sRses- lssslssH as ltsog4a ~ ~ .pss
* !, Oh, :E(
. yssGREENVIELE. sSOUTH
lIt Is . great Hardship, that a per,
|son, who has been unfortunate in
forming o matrjmonial connection,
must be forever precluded from
any possibilityrof extricating him
self from such q misfortune,, and
be slrut out from enjoying the best
pleasures Of life. This 'consideral
ton, instead OF adding to the hap.
piness. of the connection, must
frighten persons from, entering in
to ut. 1t is, therefore, the best
policy, to- admit q dissolution of
the contract, when it is evident
tl.at the parties cannot derive from
Iitfthe benefits for which it was int
stituted, and wien instead Of be!
ing a source Of the highet plea.
sure and most enduring felicity, it
l,becomes the source of the deepest
woe and misery n'aiy1 Swrft's Sys4
TEN, 191. .saa .sss7 ..gsr 80 81
- Whether the Jurisdiction should
be extended in granting divorces
a einctt1o mdtrimonti beyond the
causes pre-existing at marriage,
and to adultery, and malicious de-
sertion subsequent thereto, need
| not nov, be discussed. Up to this
point, at least, the judicial tribu.
malls of most civilized countries ex.
ercise jurisdiction. F a, ru
In this State heretofore, mar,
riage, from any cause and under
all circumstances, has been obso,
lutely indissoluble - the Courts
taking the ground that the Legis.
lature had not invested them with
| power to declare a divorce, and
have uniformly declined to exer.
else it. The Legislature has stead
lily refused to grant a dissolution
of the marriage tie.' There is,
perhaps, no other civilized conn.
try, either protestant or catholic,
that has not made some provision,
either 1egislatively or judicially,
for dissolving marriage for ade
qnate cause, except this State. In
| England, the Ecclesiastical Courts
grant divorces q mensa ct horo
and the British Parliament q vi,s.
culo mdtrimonii. In Scotland the
marriage is dissolved for adultery
or malicious desertion, by the
Courts, and in the States Of the
American Union, the same powers
are exercised by most of the Courts
for canses already enumerated, and
for others not mentioned. .yaas~h
In Rhame vs. Rhame, McCord's
| G. r. 1877, Judge Mott, in a bill
fled for alimoliy, admitted that,
in England, such cases belonged
to the Ecclesiastical Courts, but
considered that alimony was an
exception in this State by the a,rac.
tice of the Court of Equity, and
from necessity, and held that "the
jurisdiction of the Court must be
limited to the allowing Of aliinony
and to such orders as are necessa
rily incident to the effectual exc
cution Of such a decree" Again
he says: Although our Courts Of
Equity have not the power to grant
divorces, yet, as the two sub biccts--
divorce and alimony--are snsea,a
ra61e companions in England, We
must look to the causes OF digo, g,
to ascertain the grounds on which
alimony 'will'be allowed."7r7 as.
In Prather vs.. Prather, 4 Dess.
G. r. "a, in considering a bill foi
alinony, Chas. DeSaussure says
: "And this, from the neceSsity O,
} the case, and to redress an injur,
! not otherwise remedsabIe-I aIlud,
to several cases which were decid
ed in this Court some years since
expressly ON the ground that n,
other tribunal could give redress
and tbst it would be nnseemly an,
highly mischieyous if this Cour
did not interfere.n,3 ri s.8 57-
: ., Chief Justice Dunkin, in tb,
case of Mattison vs. Mattison,
Strobhart, @. r. 3S7, which wa
a bill to declare a nullity of mar
riage, said "tbat there was no dis
tinction in such a bill and a bill
for divorce; that the Legislatur,
had not conferred any such iuris
diction on the Court, and tina