Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1870-12-02
Divorce.
DEBATE IN THE SENATE.

Mr. Bailey called up S. 116, relating
to divorce, and moved an amendment
providing for the exclusion from the tri-
ais all persons except the officers Of the
court and the parties interested.
| Mr.. Carpenter opposed the amend
ment. He did not believe in "bed-
room court"
Mr.. Bailey believed the authority to
exclude persons from the court room a
very wise authority to lodge in the court
there are certain cases where scandal
mongers onght to be excluded, and the
court should have the power to keep
them away.
Mr.. Eddy also favored the amend
ment, and it was adopted.
Mr.. Heath opposed the bill. He
thought it singular for Senators to favor
a system which gives greater facilities
for obtaining divorces when it is admStt-
ed that our lax laws upon divorce are a
crying evil. This bill opens courts fos 81
long time twice every year. Now there
are only few days in the year in which
the courts are open for the cases. He
objected to the tribunal before which
these cases are to be brought. The side.
judges of the county court are not AS
ually men of very great intelligence and
Judgment. They are liable to be inau-
enced by local views and prejudices4
Often their towns are interested in d.
vorce cases affecting paupers. He would
keep these cases removed from all local
influences.
The difficulty in the divorce system is
not in the laws or in the proceedings OF
the courts, but in public sentiment, and
no bill which the Legislature can pass,
will effect a remedy until public senti--
ment is changed.
1t is another very serious objection to-
the bill that it allows parties to testify.
1t is an innovation which would not be-
suggested in other causes. Should it be
allowed in this, the most important kind,
of trial, in which courts are called upon
for judgment.
He suggested that if the supreme,
court has not time to properly attend to-
these cases, it should be allowed to APP
point an examiner to 60 out and try the
fact of collision.
Mr.. Carpenter suggested that the bill
imposes an additional expense upon the
counties Of the State. He hoped that
if it is to pass, provision will be in
serted requiring parties to pay this addi-
tional burden.
Mr.. Bailey believed it utterly impos-
sibie for the State to Legislate down hill
upon this matter. Every lawyer in the
State knows that one-third of the di-
, vorces granted are obtained through
fraud. Under the present system every
one knows that it is easy to procure tes-
timony to prove anything desired. He
knew of case where the dispositions
! were signed in blank. There are more
safeguards thrown around the prosecu-
ton of promissory note for ten dollars
than about libel for divorce. Under
the present system it is impossible to ex-
pose them.
Y Much was said derisive of the laws Of
e Indiana. Why, Indiana throws more
2 safeguards about her divorce system
: then Vermont. Where there is no ap
g pearance in that State for the libellee
k the District Attorney is directed to ap
e pear. He thought he could prove thai
t. no State in the Union hrs so loose sys
70 tenn as Vermont.
1t As to the provisions of the bill, the
r law provides that one of the parties shall
IS reside in the county where the cause il
% to be tried. He believed it an advan
1t tage to have the cases tried by some res
e. ident of the county on this very account
D. They will be better able to detect at
n tempted frauds in proving residence.
d Under the present system of using
he dispositions, there is no possibility to as
10 certain whether there is collusion.-
70 Should the parties be brought face t.
or face with the witnesses and the court
there would be an opportunity to detect
all frauds of this kind.
F A law allowing parties to testify in
'r such cases is already in force in Massa.
ID chusetts. Prior to 1852 it would have
ID been considered q terrible innovation to
n allow parties to testify against their
r. neighbors. But the new system has now
D no enemies. 1t has been said that tri.
o vial circumstances would occupy the
d time of the court. He inquired what
re are the causes of divorce in Vermont ?
'r Would the judges allow the admission of
(, irrelevant testimony?
n As to the argument of the Senator
" from Washington that pretty woman
in tears would always carry the court