The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-12-15
LAXITY OF DIVORCE.

From the Chicago Republican.
1t is a painful fact in the very painful case
now so prominently before the public that
the more one scrutinizes it the more
offensive grow it's details. The Indiana
divorce of Mrs. Mcfarland seems indeed to
have been one of the cruelest of burlesques
on honorable legislation. Induced to leave
her husband without single warning note,
Mrs. Mcfarland appears to have settled in In
dianapolis for nothing else than to bridge
over, as slightly as possible, the gulf fixed be-
tween Richardson and herself She first files
petition for divorce before Judge Woolen
Gt is we'll that we have his name) on the
ground of her husbands Incorporate habits
and ill-treatment of herself. Not word in
it, however, about the crime with which
| Mr.. Beecher did not scruple to charge
| him. Affidavit is made that the unsus-
pecting Mcfarland is not resident
of the State, and then he is
notified by ''the Morgan County gazette,
weekly newspaper of general circulation, ac-
cording to its proprietor, that the suit is pro-
| ceeding. Probably not being subscriber
and regular reader of this weekly newspaper
of general circulation" Mcfarland does not
reply, and the trial goes forward. The wit
| nesses are Mrs. McFarland's father, and one
Mrs. Lucia Gilbert Calhoun, who, by the way,
will have to be exonerated by forthcoming
testimony of great deal of present suspicion
if she cares to stand well with public opinion.
The fathers story is 30 vague that one shivers
to think of the dangers that environ the hap
piest couples in the world. He ''specifes
abuse and violence" by testifying that his SON.
in-law used to rave when intoxicated and
break the plates and dishes. Suddenly looms
up the Hon. A. q. Porter, who vouches for
Mrs. Netherlands respectability, having
been introduced to her by the "most
respectable people in New York." and
modestly requests the divorce as q personal
favor. Then we have Mrs. Lucia Gilbert
Calhoun, who gives hearsay evidence that
J Mcfarland used to get drunk, and alleges
, that she once saw him in a state of intoxica-
; ton. AS to the abuse and ill-treatment she
only knows what Mrs. Mcfarland told her.
= | If Mrs. Mcfarland had had no interest in the
result this kind of testimony would have
: been execrable in itself; but as she was in
t tensely concerned, her diluted and distorted
assertions We're terribly out of place. Yet,
3 on the strength of this flimsy evidence Judge
= Woolen fires the train which has exploded so
Q dlsastrously, by yhanding over Mrs. Mcfarland
, to the arms of Richardson and the sympathy
o of ''the Gilbert girls. Surely this Judge
Q Woolen could never have contemplated such al
u awful comment on his loose ruling. He coulC
9 never have reflected ON the woes and the
h misery and the scandal which were latent in
t his decree of divorce. But the lesson hai
o been read, and the community still rings
; with its dismal echoes. The scandalou
: laxity of law and the parody of justice hav,
n for once been brought face to face with tn,
# fate that should always attend them
n Whether the effect will be lasting whethe
a its solemn protest will be always quick ant
$ vital, we do not know and cannot assume
r But we trust the notoriety and inquir
r the case has excited may result benefciall
IS to public morals and the means of get
/ tnCr only 10 fln -
Q landmarks, when marriage was a sacre
Y bond. entered into for this life and the on
s beyond, and not to be loosely severed b
Il human agencies.