Litchfield enquirer., 1870-07-21
WHOLE NO as55
DIVORCE.

s
 The bill passed by the Senate for the re- peal of the omnibus" clause of the di- vorce law was so amended in the Honse as to retain that clause. The debate on that question was an instructive one:
 Substitute bill repeating so much of the present divorce law as allowed divorces for ''such other misconduct as permanentlv destroys the happiness of the petitioner and defeats the purposes of the marriage relation" Also providing that no case shall be tried at the first term unless it ap.l pears that the defendant has had notice. The bill was reported upon favorably by the committee on judiciary 'H'' MT. Johnson, of Enfield, moved to strike out so much of the bill as repeals the s'mis- | conduct clause" MT. Brewster, of .Danbury, said that un- der this clause divorces might be obtained for almost all reasons. No other state has such facility for divorce except Indiana. ] He opposed the amendment. He lknew Q. case where man was twice divorced in two months under this clause. TAI 94@ag Mir. Eaton of Hartford, said he favored l the proposed amendment. He would rath- CT that six of the other causes for divorces
 
 | than this one. He took this ground be- cause there are hardships worse than any mentioned in the other clauses, which can only be reached by this clause. If courts do their duty no divorce can be obtained under the present law unless it is right. By the practice of. fraud divorces can be obtained under any clause A divorce was lately obtained for adultery. The proof was that the man was seen to go into house of i'll fame. The man had hired a witness to watch him enter so that his wife could get divorce from him. 3
 MT. Doolittle, of New Haven, said that the occasion of the passage of this clause was the decision of SWatelle vs. Swatelle, a case which decided that where man, and he clergyman, insisted upon 8 certain marital privilege when his wife was sick and dying, that this was not cause for divorce. MT. Doolittle advocated the amendment. The contrast in regard to the purity of morals between this state and 1 New York, which allows divorces 0 menso this state. He related case where he ob- tained divorce because the father would not allow his wife or children to attend church or to have bible in the house, but would curse and abuse his wife for her re- ligious efforts for her children. He obtain that divorce under this clause. ani | There were cases of abuse of wives which could. not be reached by the specified cases in law One, punished with death in the Levitical law. could not be reached except under this clause.
 Repeal it, and the legislature would be over-run with petitions for divorces from parties who could not get hearing in the courts.
 MT. Olmstead, of Stamford, said one great objection to this clause was the scrip tural argument The truth is the custom of the Jews was for a man whenever he wantad to pnt away his wife to sit down and write bill of divorce. No court did this, but he himself. Christ said that no man should do this except for fornication. He had no reference to courts or legisla- lures. This point had been put to an as- sembly of clergymen, and with all their learning they could not answer it. Marri- age, so far as the Legislature is concerned, is civil contract and ought to be dealt with as such.
 Mr. Buckingham of Saybrook, believed the people of the State wanted the bill passed The law of the state on the sub- feet of divorce had become a by-word and reproach, and he hoped the bill would stand as it was reported. 4a 5--ag-'t- MT. Brewster said the question here was not whether the one cause should be adop- ted, but whether petitioners should speci- fly in their petitions what their claims are. The cases cited by MT. Doolittle were cov- cred by the other provisions of the bill MT. Doolittle could not cite any authority that did not pronounce such provision as this infamous. Connecticut was called the Indiana of New England and he thought justly .-...,.,.s F.. .-...s....-
 Dr. Miller regarded this as the saving clause of our divorce law, and tended not to easy divorces, but to terminating many domestic ills. -~-'
 MT. Johnson said the changes were ask ed for principally by ministers who know nothing about the practical operation of the divorces, and who, in nine cases inten commit more sin in marrying parties who ought not to be married than the lawyers do in separating them. He thought the lawyers of the state the best judges of what the law ought to be, and nine-tenths of them oppose the repeal of this clause. All the other clauses relate to the body--to physical suffering, and this only admits that woman has mind and may be worse punished than by beating. ,L si3 SL
 Mir. Buckingham said that the passage of this bill would tend to lessen the num- Der of foolish marriages. '' 'A'
 MT. Nolan of Windsor, thought that cler= gymen should be more careful about mar rying, but that marriages once enter ed into should not be interferred with.
 MT. Potter, of Essex, said that if this clause was repealed there would be fewer nasty marriages, and the minor differences would be smothered over.
 After some remarks by MT. Johnson, MT. Staples moved to adjourn. He was not prepared to vote on this question. It was one of profound interest.
 MT. Hungerford. of Chester, called the previous question, and the motion to 1 strike out the question repeating the omi- bus clause was carried, v to B, and the bill passed. .s s4Jla ea sag 1 ------------------ e..' a | STATE TTEM9