The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-08-15
DIVORCE.

We publish in another column, u com
municaton in reference TO divorces, drawn |
out by some editorial remarks made by us
some days ago We agree. in every res
poet. with the sentiments of the writer,
and firmly believe that whatever tends to
weaken the bonds OF matrilnony, tends to
weaken society itself. and the safety there
Of Indiana, for years, was by-word OF
reproach, and hcldup to the scorn and detes-
tation of the world, because ii was alleged
that divorces could be there obtained with
such extraordinary ease and facility. Yer
mont wrapped itself in its garments of as
sumed virtue and joined in the hue and cry
against poor Indiana and other western
states, holding her own statute book in her
hand, and pointing to it. exclaimed, here
the sacredness of the marriage tie is as
sured, here are provisions which will pre-
vent. as they were designed to. all hasty.
improper or fraudulent divorces. What
was the fact all this time Vermont grant
cd divorces for the same. and only the
same reasons that Indiana did. The only
difference between the states was that ii
took one year longer to obtain a divorce
here than there. Persons could come to
Vermont from foreign states gain a resi-
dence here. and then obtain divorce for
causes not recognized in the state from
which they came So they could in lndi-
ana, but in one years less time and We,
| nI ,,,J, ,f ia, anil
decried Indiana.
This is not all. Our correspondent al
ludes to the collision often practiced in
order to obtain Il divorce, referring to one
marked example. Under the old Indiana
law, no party could obtain divorce I'M
less it was proved, hy the oath of the
party seeking divorce, that he was Il bono
tide resident of the state, and that there
was no collision, understanding or agree
ment between husband and wife by which
a divorce was sought. How stands the
case in Vermont: Simple residence is
only required to he proved and it is I'M
necessary to inquire whether the residence
is bona tide or only gained to give the party
a status IN court So that he could petition
for relief This is not the worst side OF
VermOnt's case, either. There is no pro-
vision made in our statutes to prevent col
usvc agreements between man and wife
seeking divorce. A few years ago two pc.
titions for divorce were pending in the
Supreme court of this county, both OF
which were granted. The same day tho
husband in the one case married the wife
same. Here was apparently and almost
beyond doubt, actual collision and al
agreement made to obtain divorces in ordcl
to ''swop wives" Judge Prout, then rep
resentng Rutland in one branch of tn,
legislature, took advantage of these occur
: ences to introduce bill into the legis
lature, and endeavored to enforce its pas
sage, providing that divorces should not b,
granted, unless the party applying therefor
should make an affidavit, that it was sough
, without collision or agreement with TIN
other party. This would have been on,
step in the right direction, but the legisla
j, , ture by large majority, refused to pas
/ the bill. What is the natural inference
> Only this, that the legislature were dis
posed to make the dissolution of tn
marriage contract as easy as possible, even
if it was necessary to resort to collusiv
r agreements, Three-quarters of the dvor
ces granted in Vermont are founded upol
u such agreements, and will continue to b
u until the laws are changed and public sen
i timent reformed.