The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-06-23
THE DIVORCE LAWS OF NEW YORK.


State of New York. But we have repeatedly
insisted that to limit divorce to this one and
only cause is to make a legislative mockery
of the sorrows and sufferings of human
hearts. And yet correspondent thinks we
ought not to meddle with SO serious sub
ject, and begs us to let it alone We cannot
oblige him. There is no topic now astlr on
which greater courage of speech is needed
than on this. To keep silent would be to re-
main criminal
Let us exhibit our meaning by referring to
a couple of illustrative instances
We know of high minded, genial, and
admirable gentleman, who a few years ago
married lady of good social position and
many personal charms. But her temper had
been inherited, by the Darwinian process,
direct from the tigress. At times she would
illustrate in fearful degree the maxim that
anger is q short madness" In her RACES she
was dangerous, and several times threatened
her husbands life. Once, when excited to an
unusual degree, she sprang at his throat.
.clutched him till he was black in the face, and
appeared intent on strangling him-a catas-
trophe which was averted only by the pre-
ssence of mind of q nurse who, on hearing
the noise, entered the room, and seizing a
bottle of chloroform which stood on the man
tel, opened it under the nostrils of the infu-
rated woman and thus melted her into quiet
ness and slumber. A family council was
thereupon called, and a separation between
the husband and wife ensued. This man,
who by all who know him, is esteemed one
of the best of husbands, is now debarred by
the laws of the State in which he lives from
marrying another woman. Now, by what
right do the lawmakers of this State forbid
this man to be divorced from this woman and
to marry another? What Just reason can be
assigned for interdicting him from re-
building his broken household on
happier foundation? Why should our statute
book condemn him to live a solitary life?
What right has the body polite to interfere
with his hearts wishes for some domestic
peace during his remaining years? We con-
slider that the law which thus binds together
this husband in formal marriage with wife
from whom he long years ago separated
through fear of his life, partakes something
of the cruelty of the semi-monster from
whom he thus fed. Such law we denounce
as unworthy of an enlightened civilization
1t has no foundation in reason and morality,
and ought to be repealed.
Furthermore, we know of a woman who,
gifted by nature with a more than common
ingenuity in delicate manufactures-an arti-
san of rare skill in subtle fabrlcs-is forced
to use all her earnings for the support of
drunken husband who never earns a cent for
himself, who treats her with habjtual cruelty,
and who is sometimes not merely brutal but
almost fiendish in the outrages which he at
tempts against her person. This wife would
gladly be legally set free from the clutches
of this brute. Her life is made wretched
by his loathsome presence under her roof
and in her chamber. The case is one
which, to those who know something of it's
details, is of peculiar violence on the one
hand and suffering on the other. But as
this case exists, like the other, in the State of
New York, there is no law on our statute
book under which this woman can ask for a
divorce. Now will our correspondent say
that she is fairly treated by our legislators?
Have they any right to impose this perpetual
yoke upon this unoffending victim? Can our
State law Justify itself before God and man
for such an encroachment on the personal
liberty of broken-hearted woman? Why
should not the statute give to this woman a
release from her wretchedness, and permit
her to marry a man whom she could love, and
whe would be blessing to her life, instead
of chaining her perpetually to wretch whom
she loathes, and who curses her existence from
year to year?
These two cases which we have quoted are
not parallels but facts. Nor are they isolated
or unusual. They are typical of thousands
of other such instances Our society is full
of similar misalliances. Skeletons like thes,
exist in many family, making what out
wardly is called home inwardly charnel
house.
Now in view of these CHASTITY facts, W,
want the law to cease from compelling then
to exist. We want to open gate by whicl
the gentleman to whom we have referred il
the first case, and the lady to whom we hav
referred in the second, can escape from thei
present imprisonment in the Castle of Clan
Despair. But the State of New York woul
have kept even Mr.. and Mrs. McFarlandin thei
bonds. The last named and agonized woman
had to fee to another commonwealth TO
the remedy which she was denied here AM
there are ten thousand Abby Mcfarland
whose breasts are bleeding with Just sucl
sorrow as carried this sufferer to Indiana t
seek divorce. great multitude of he
bruised and beaten sisters who have not exh
bited her courage suffer without sign. An
society, by imposing upon them an unius
law forbidding their release, becomes pGrticeL
OTjn,iniS in their griefs.
This is what we mean by denouncing th
existing partial and limited legislation on th
subject of divorce. Our correspondent ma
think there is no just occasion to touch sue
theme. We judge otherwise. Our view
on the whole subject may be distinct
summed up as follows:-The law of marriag
is, "Whom God hath joined together let NJ
man put asunder;" and the law of divorce i
s'Whom God hath put asunder let no ma
keep together"
DO WE ACCEPT REVOLUTION?
From the NJ Y. World.
If the radical Interpretation of amen
ments XIII, XIV, and XIV were warrante