The daily gazette., 1881-01-22
FIRST EDITION.
Dur Legislative Letter.
AN INTERFERING CHAPTER ON THE d.
voRCE QUESTION.
Norraanondanca of the Gazstte

The divorce question has had its
airy discussion in the House and now
siuce defamation, scrupulousity aud
''iinesse" have fallen before the bat
terry Of common sense and "mOther
w.t." the members are silently but
with cogent force asserting 10 their
conslituents' demands.
The plea of tn opposition among
the Democrats is "DIvOrce q urt. -
The plea with the Republicans, is
party capital" The plea of tue
honest and genuine sons of Delaware,
Is that Gospel precept, owe will do
unto Others as we would be done by"
We, tho Legislature, the Supreme
power IN the State, will assert our
prerogative, help those who need our
strength and execdte alutary laws for
the benefit of our citizens. We will NOT
barter away the sacred traditional and
nalienAble riOhts Of our people, foI
The modern perversions of inflated leg
lslators.
"Now," said one Of The gentlem n,
'let me give you my construction OF
the law which threw the whole Legis-
iature into a state Of doubt, when the
legal objection was raised by Mr..
Bradford and echoed by his support.
'ln the case cited in the debate, Town
send VS.. Grltfiu, 4 h Harrington, 146,
the arguments of Rodgers and Wales,
who respectively represented the liti~
gants show confusion, doubt and con-
Jradiction. In Judge Har, ington's =
opinion there is nothing definite, save
k,ol,
| until he comments on the Act of 1882.
The act Of 1882 declares "that the Su.
| perior Court shall have the sole cogni-
zanca of granting divorces, where
either of the parties had a former wife
Jr husband living at the time of sol
emnizing the second marriage, or
| where either Of the parties shall be
wilfully absent from the other, with
the intention of aband Jnment, three
years; or IN case of adultery or where
the male party is actually impotent at
the time Of the marriage, or IN case of
extreme cruelty" Now, "whilst the
act of 1892, remains in force, doubts
may well exist whether tile General
Assembly has powur by special la ~ to
divorce parties for any Of the causes
| specified in that act.
Gas to all other causes it may have
been wise to retain the power in the
| Legislature for tIeir may exist cases
of a character improper for public ju-
dicial investigation and also cases SO
special in their circumstances, as not
To fall within any class defined by gen
eral law" Now let me compare the
law of 1882, vol. 8, page 175, with the
Law in the Revised Code of 1852, as
amended in 1874.
"rhe Superior Court shall have the
sole cognizdnce of granting divorces
for the following causes A divorce
from the bonds of matrimony shall be
decieed for adultery, desertion for
three years, habitual drunkenness, i'm
DO .ency of either party at the time oi
matrimony, extreme cruelty, or con-
victiuu, either in or out of this Stale
after marriage, of crime by the laws oi
this State deemed felony, whether such
crime shall be peTpetra cd before or af
Ter such marriage"
"rhis is the law /; there are various
amendments enumeratlng other causes
and the proceedings in the superior
Court, but they are immaterial to the
consideration of this question before
this body.
Therefore, upon comparison the
difference between the two laws is that
in the law OF 1859, as amended in 1874,
the causes OF habitual drunkenness
lmpotency of either party At the time
Of marriage (in the law of 1882 i'm
potency OF the male only,) conviction,
&C., are added, which you may see by
looking at the two as laid down by me
and which may be summarized by add
ins to one cause, and subtIacting from
the other cause. Our opinion eE pi
termini is that the opinion of Judge
Harringlo on applies to one as we'll as TO
the other. Now let US apply the opih-
ion given above to section ! of the
amended Revised Code. The learned
Judge is in doubt as to whether the
General Assembly can divorce parties
for the causes above enumerated. But
since we have been State, at least as
far back as 1889, it has been the un-
questioned usa 20 of the Legislature to
grant divorces, and not only to grant
divorces but to grant them for causes
cognizAble by the Superior Court.
"fuc law Is in doubt.
"Usag, Is indabitable.
"rheretofe the Legislature should
grant divorces.
"rh. learned Judge says that there
may be cases 30 special in their circam
,tances a. not to fall within any clds'
defined by general law"
"Can not We suppose case? Can no
we take up one that surely comes wi hli
the scope of this opinion? think tha
We ean. | think that throwing ih'
law aside | can give you one which you
hough you are opposed TO divorce oi
any ground save adultery, will think i
cogni z Ibie by the Legislature.
A married B; three months OF matrl
nouiai felicity followed; A deserted b
marrlrd q, aud never communicate
with B Whatsoever. AS sister, In tn
course of year told Is that A mad maI
ried u aud removed To a distant part o
the country. Since ths marriage OF A
to Is 2 years have elapsed. The Legis
lature is in session. B apphes for dl
vorce. BY statute deserllon has to cont'n
a. Tor three years before the case Is G )
uiZab!e before the Superior Court H.
a not the Legislature right, Is II 10
l.. bound to grant q divorce II the fac
0 stated arc clearly proven TO the satisfa'
\ ton of the Committee on Divorce?
a at Is "A case clearly not TO DO tried |
a the Superior Court. The Superior Cou
/. IL not in session. What other rem1d
, has this woman, who now bears u
: name Of him who Is an adulterer tina
# tho right of petition TO, and the favo
s able reception Of such pstition by Il