New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-22

Dur "soy.p ri Estates Cy Codr 1888 10
Total .....................f2s 5O2 ,a33 81
Deduct warrants outstanding Tor
thr Citiz.ns' Bank et ais ~ $50 900 90
Total public debt outstanding. S25, POS, ,3J %
Mr.. Benedict was followed by Major New.
who represents the Governor and the At
tOrneV General
The suits of Samuel Smith ct ais vs.. the
State Board of LiquidatorS OF the Floating
Debt viii come up for argument to-day be-
fore the Eighth District Court.
In the matter OF the last petition filed III
this case, the counsel upon either side wer"
engaged yesterday in the clerk 5 office TAX
ing the testimony OF Mr.. Gaines. the presl
dent OF the Citizens Bank.
In the account published OF the testl-
mony given 10y the Governor in this case.
h. is. by Il typographical hlunder. made t"
say that he 81 gnrd the bill on Saturday.
March /. at halt-past ten o'clock. 1t should
have read halfpast one o'clock Z. NJ.
Sixth District Gonrt.The Question Of
Judge Cooley. yesterday. delivered the
following opinion III the divorce suit OF
ROycS VS.. ROyes:
On March 9. 1870. the Legislature of the
State enacted that:
Married persons may rccipIocally claim
a divorce on account OF excuses. ilabltua.
intcmperancc. cruel treatment. aHd any
such misconduct Tep"ghnitt to the m0r17nW
rOreHa,t as permanently destroys the
happiAess Of tie peijhoac'. or OF outrages
OF one of them toward the other. If such
OutraerS or ll-treatmcnt be of such
nature as to render their living together ia
supportalle.
With the exception OF the words ital
icised. the above act i but the repetition
of the law as it existed previous y. with
this exception. however: that the causes in
the present law authorize at once ii judg-
ment for absolute divorce: and under the
law as it previously existed. they We're
grounds only for a separation from bed and
board. which. in the event OF no reconcilia
ton between the parties within a certain
time. led to a final divorce.
1t was obviously the policy of the an
cirnt legislation to respect as much as pos
siblc a contract like that OF marriage. which
many considered deriving force only
from religion. Though regarded merely in
the light of II civil contract by our laws,
the contract. unlike all others. consid
cred as partaking OF sacred character:
and it is plain that our legislation was
framed SO as to throw a. many obstacles us
possible in the way ot its dissolu
ton by Judgment OF courts. Hence
if is that, while giving to the spouscs
the right to ask judicial >cpara-
tion on account OF Ill treatment, eX-
cpSSps and outragcS. 1t was wisely
ordained that tits judgment OF separation
should not operate as final divorce until
a certain period of time had elapsed. 1t
was believed that separation would remove
the irritation of mind by removing the cause
of it, and this. with time. would enable the
spouscs to reflect seriously upon the tinality
to which the first judgment tended. and
that the probable result of this sober second
thought would bc reconciliation of the
parties
Experience has shown the wisdom of this
law by the number OF persons VINO. after
having obtained judgm OF separation. mad
become rcconciled and had lived years hap
PLY together.
But morality. like anything else, is sub
iect to the march of Improvement. and the
progressive impulses OF the present age
will not admit that anything can be 50
sacred as to be bcyOnd criticism. \ con
tract like that of marriage. upon the exist
ence of which depends our social fabric
has recently been made almost an object
of contempt by the very lawglvcrs whose
proper mission ii was TO elevate 1t. The
law of March g 1870 makes of the con
jugal relation merely transient state.
to he assumed today and east
of tomorrow. with ease and facll-
ity. And such misconduct rcpugnant to
the marriage covenant as permanently de
strovs the happiness of the petitioner.
How easy ii is to obtain a divorce when
such is decrced by the law a good cause
therefor. There must be misconduct it
must ne of that character which is rcpug-
uant to the marriage covenant and it must
have the effect of destroying the HAPPINESS
O; the petitioner. But who is to iudne and
determine the existence OF the misconduct,
its character and its effect
What is meant by ''mi>conduct rcpugnant
to the marriage covenant. | understand
but one object the lawgiver could have had
in view by the use of such broad language:
and that was. to give as much room Tor in
depreciation as possible, and thereby tacili
tate those who are DESTROYS OF being d
vorced. The title of the act. to comply
strictly with IL certain constitutional iii
junction. should have been IAN act t.
render divorces as easy as possible.
The present Is case brought under TIL
influence of this legislation. Two appi
rently very Young persons, imagining Their
was nothing but honey i'll the world, ente
the marllag" state. AS is inevitable. som
slight cause OF quarrel arises. nothing III Ii
self but rendered huge in its proportions b.
the prccOncelNed notions of the vOUthfi
pair in relation to the everlasting fell, il
they had in view. This trie brn" fed b.
all the romance OF ardent and youthtu
hearts and still more youthful minds grow
into something at first barely perceptible t
the eve of the world, but gradually assumin
such shape and form as to render the Twin
together of the parties not only unbearabl
aud insupportabie to themselves, but nuts