Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1878-12-25
The Future Of the Divorce Question.

us future, especially III lJS cohhecuVh WIN"
the relation of the family to the state and
church. That il has future, and one OF
great things, we cannot doubt. For while
we appreciate the gain from the recent agi-
tation of the subject and the amendments
to our divorce laws just made, we look upon
what has been done as only the beginning
of what should and may be made great re-
form which shall reach far beyond the
scope of mere divorce legislation. The
matter now stands in some respects where
the temperance work did in its earlier
stages, when public sentiment began to
make license laws little more stringent,
but was not quite ripe for prohibition.
The work to be done takes two direc-
tions,-we must aim at sound laws, and we
must secure a correct public opinion to de-
maud and support the legislation. The
goal of legislation must be--absolute divorce
shall be granted for only one cause. Legis-
lation must not encourage immortality. No
law should remain on the statute book
which strikes at the life of the family, aud
public opinion is not what it ought to be
until it demands and supports good law.
To secure these results, the discussion must
rest on fundamental principles which shall
be so thoroughly taught that they become
familiar as household words.
There are two principles that set forth the
chief legal aspects of the case. First the
family has natural rights just as much as
the individual. The family has a right
to its own integrity just as completely as
the individual has the right to the one
ness of his being. Law must not NEEDLE
with the integrity of the family for the
reason that the family is in no proper
sense the creature of civil law, but is the
work of God in creation that is as much
above the reach of human law as the crea-
ton of any individual life. The right, there
fore, of the family to its life, to freedom
and the pursuit of its own divinely ap-
pointed end, is as d" inalienable" as are
the rights of the individual.
Then, secondly, the state must guard the
family as the apple of its own eye for the
reason that the family is the source of the
state and supplies the foundation on which
the whole national structure is builded The
family is the warp of the social fabric. The
family has rights to be guarded, and the
state has profound interests to be served
by the family. If the rights run deep, the
interests are equally far-reaching. Under
standing this, legislation must say it cannot
regulate or prescribe forms by which men
may destroy or corrupt the family. 1t will
no more dare to keep bad divorce laws on
its statute book than it will venture to pro-
vide legal forms for gambling, or prostitu-
ton, or for reasonable assemblies. Law
will not violate common morality. 1t will
not infringe upon the rights of the fam
lily, nor afford the state means of committing
crime against itself.
This divorce question, it is thus seen,
leads out into a broad field of study and &C.
ton. 1t opens to the idea and work of the
family as the most important factor of the
state. We cannot but think that in our de-
velopment of the doctrine of rights during
the past century, we have too much neg
lected the rights of men in families as be-
ing equally needful of care at the hands of
free government with the rights of indi-
viduals. And if we could carry the Jeffer-
sonian doctrine of rights over from the in
dividual to the family little more, it would
greatly increase our promise Of national
stability. Communism is already knocking
at our doors, and our tendencies to individu-
alism have made it somewhat difficult to re-
sist the entrance OF communism. We must
learn to reply to its appeal by affirmation
of the family in idea, and by diligent cul-
ture of it as an institution. unhappy"
says DR.. Hopkins, will be the nation whose
legislative mind shall regard society simply
as mass of indy iduals, and not as a COM
binaton of families" We cannot settle
too soon the question whether we are made
up of families, or are simply mass Of indi-
viduals.
To this future leading of the divorce ques-
ton we desire to turn the thought of our
readers. When the family shall receive
the attention it deserves at the hands of the
legislator and citizen, when the rights OF
both the family and the individual shall, in
| Just proportion, help describe the line that
bounds the province of law, then good di
vorce laws will be secured-and some other
things besides.
| Is it asked, Where shall the rights and
purposes of the family be learned The
answer is, In the study of its nature, ant
of his will who gave it being. God ha'
written the rights and uses of the family in
its natural constitution and relation to 80
ciety, and taught them in his Word. Legis
lation and society take the family as liv
ing thing given Into their hands. The law
of its life and the rules for its nurture ar
also from God. The two gifts-the beinl
and its laws-come together from the sam
source. The Christian church is entrustet
with the great duty of teaching the Wor'
of God. In doing this, she often reassert
natural truth and shows that her lessons ar
as well founded in nature as they are clearl
taught in revelation. The church is tn
divinely appointed guardian of the famil,
for the state and for her own sake. She mus
emphasize the family idea in her own il
struction and work. She must declare il
sanctity and show its power as an elemer
of her own constitution and that of all o
gained society. When the church respect
the family and holds up its nature an
power, the state may be expected to see il
worth and protect its rights. We look upo
y the instruction of the people in the natul
and claims of the family as one of the mo
important and pressing duties of IL
+ church.
l. Commercial Tides.
y A late editorial in the London Times a
y yances and supports the theory that
u England there is period of revolution
s. trade and commerce of about ten years.
W series of changes takes place in that tin
al | haoinpin ~ with a al uht ravival of acfi vi