The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1870-01-18
DIVORCE LAWS.
Divorce Statistics in Various States The
East not EiameIess.
From the Baltimore Sun.

Divorce Statistics in Various States The
East not Biameless.
(From the Baltimore sSun'.1
The frequency OF divorce, subject
which has been again raised, in connec
ton with the late miserable Richardson
affair in New York, is a greater scandal
and peril to this country than Norman
ism, which is mostly a local nuisance.
| and Practically outside of the social in
fuences of our country. The article Of
President Woolsey, of Yale College, on
Divorce Legislation in the United
States,' to which we some time ago re-
ferred. contains startling facts, which de-
serve to be repeated and urged upon
the consideration Of all good citizens
The article is based on careful exam-
ination of the statistics of twenty-three
States, including nearly all the older
ones. The causes of divorce are given
in the various reports presented to the
Legislatures In Vermont, out of ST.
divorces In five years, there were for au-
dultery, 164; willlul desertion, 18s; de-
sertion, 60; intolerable severity, 1875; for
refusal to support. l3; with twenty 9TH
ers, in most of which more causes than
one are mentioned. In Massachusetts,
out Of 1894 divorces granted in about
u "
or AZ 8 per cent; for desertion, $50, or
IS FER cent; for cruelty, 122. or "a
per cent; Is for inteIGperance, and 2t
miscellaneous. Here the large ratio for
adultery is startling Can this repre-
sent the real state of the case? In Ohio.
out of 1851 cases Of which the causes
are particularly assigned, there were
granted for adultry 935; for absence
and neglect 1,050; for cruelty, 440; for
intemperance l96. Of the origin of the
applicants for divorce we have no items
furnished us, save that in Ohio, the
counties where the Catholics form a con
siderable part of the population fell be-
low the ratio, while the Western Re-
serve counties have mucn larger
proportion of divorces than the rest of
the State These counties are com
posed of the Simon Pures Of the Puri-
taa atock, and the leaders in all manner
of isms. In Vermont the ratio of an
nual divorces to annual marriages foots
up for seven years total of 73O divor-
ces to 1910 marriages, or ratio of |
to 81. In Massachusetts for period Of
four years, there was a total of 1,0S2 di-
vorces to 45,372 marriages, ratio of l
to A. In OHIO, in 1866, the divorces
were 1,169; marriages, 30,479, or ra-
llO OF To 70. Ia COnnectlcut, IN q
period Of eight years, the divorces foot
up 1910; marriages, 80, ,227, ratio of l
to IL. From Prussia we have some ma
tIerials for instituting comparison be-
tween that country of loose divorce laws
and the States named above. We ex-
clude the Catholic population, which
can not be done with accuracy in the
States, and thus the story the tables tell
is unfairly in favor of the latter. For
instance, in Connecticut, where the
whole number of marriages were 4,97S
in 1866, marriages in which both parties
were of foreign birth were I,2OS. Now,
of these it is safe TO say that two thirds
say 800, were Catholics, who rarely petit
tion for divorce in that State Deduct
ing them, we have the ratio of one di-
vorce to less than eight and u half 50
called Protestant, or rather non Catho-
lie marriages. Prussia in 1855, Maria
ges Of non Catholics, S4,914; divorces,
2,937; ratio l to %. These statistics go
to show that bad SIS the West is 10 the
facilities it affords for divorce, it has re-
ceiyed rather more than its share of Cd
ium. There is general looscness on
this subject in the legislation Of most of
the States, which is discreiisabie TO us
as civilized people, and ininical to tue
happiness and virtue of society.