Democratic messenger. [volume] (Snow Hill, Md.) 1869-1973, 1881-09-03
THE DIVORCE LAWS.
How They Stand in Different Coun-
tries of the World.

JFIcS Oh tne w Oflu.
American divorces have bad name,
and they deserve it. In Catholic coun-
tries there are no divorces. A man and
woman once married are married for
life. No matter how grievously either
of them may have sinned against the
other, they remain husband and wife.
"What God hath joined together let no
man put asunder," is interpreted liter
ally by the Church of Rome, and Is ad
hered to strictly, except in the very rare
case of a divorce by the Pope.
All Protestant countries have laws of
divorce. These vary in strictness and
in the list of offences for which q legal
separation may be decreed. The law of
England, for example, will give a
woman a divorce from her husband if
he beats her cruelty. In some of the
United States wife can have divorce
for no better reason than incompati-
bility of temper" which may mean no
more than that the woman does not like
the man she has married.
In most of our States the number of
divorces that are obtained each year is
appalling. They form large percent
age of the marriages. They are granted
for slight causes and on exceedingly
doubtful testimony. Sometimes sepa-
interested is wholly ignorant that pc
tition for divorce has been lodged.
There are lawyers, so-called, who adj
vertise that they will procure divorces
secretly. That means that they will OBJ
tain divorce for any husband or wife
without any notice to the wife or hus-
band who may be interested to prevent
it.
A case came some time ago before the
English divorce court--for there is but
one divorce court for all the millions of
people IN England. A woman asked for
a divorce from husband, who had al
ready been granted one from her by a
Kansas court.
It seems that this man, some twelve
years ago, left Birmingham, England,
to avoid his creditors. His wife re-
mained behind. When he arrived in
this country he sent for her to join him.
She refused to do so. He continued to
correspond with her until the autumn OF
1873, he petitioned the Kansas courtfor
divorce, and obtained 1t. After a few
months he married again.
The reason he gave for asking di-
vorce was, that his wife had deserted
him, when, in fact, he had deserted her,
and had not sent her dollar for hel
support. The Kansas court was salts.
fed with the man s assertion that he had
notified his wife that he desired di-
vorce. But the woman learned of the
suit for divorce only when the case had
been decided and her husband declared
| free.
The English court would not admit
the Justice or legality of such nonsense.
It held that the man was still British
subject and under English laws /; and
under English laws q marriage cannot
be dissolved in another country for O
reason which is not recognized in Eng.
land as proper cause for divorce. De-
sertion not being such a case, the Eng.
Iish court decided that the Kansas di.
vorce was illegal, and gave the woman O
divorce because of her husbands big.
amy. The lesson is a good one. The
loose notions held in this country on the
subject of marriage are crime against
society. Unions that can be lightly
broken, are lightly made. The girl who
answered her maiden aunt's declaration
that it is a solemn thing to be married
by the remark that ",it is a great deal
more solemn not to be-" put in shape
the prevalent idea that it is a good
thing to be married anyhow.
It is not good thing to be married
anyhow. Marriage is good only when
there is mutual love and respect be-
tween the parties to the contract.
Where these are lacking. the wish fol
separation follows inevitably. No lover
of good morals denies the necessity ol
reform in the divorce laws in this
country, but the proper place to begin
the reform is by intoxicating true ideas
in the young of the sanctity of mar
riage. 1t is the most sacred of all hu'
man relations. God honors and blesses
it. He intended 1t as a union for life,
and not to be broken save for the gravest
of reasons.