Morning journal and courier., 1882-03-23

torneY for the county In Wh1ch It IS pendlnS shall either state, or certify ln writing to the court. that he has read the same, and made such inquiry as to satisfy him that the inter- ests of public justice do not require that the same should be contested.
 Sec g. In every contested divorce suit the States attorney for the county in which it is brought shall inquire into the merits and ser- vice of the same, and may defend against the same unless he IS notified that the de- fendant intends in good faith to contest.
 Sec. f. State duty of five dollars is here- bv imposed on all complaints for divorce. in addition to all charges imposed by existing laws: and the clerk of the Superior Court shall collect the same within ninety days after the return of such complaint to court; and if said duty on any complaint is not paid within said time, he shall erase the case from the docket.
 Section 5. The clerk shall pay the duties imposed by the foregoing section, when col lected, to the State's Attorney for the county, and the same shall be in full compensation for all services required of the States Attor- ney by this act Mr. King advocated the passage of the bill, holding that it did not change the causes for \ which divorces may be granted, but restraints l the perpetration of fraud. He denounced the divorce laws of the State as 8 monst1os1ty, I and quoted Leonard W. Bacon's smart cpl gram about the Connecticut divorce system being worse than Mormonism.
 l MT. Gillespie, of Stamford, supported the minority report, holding that it was in the | interest of society and for the benefit of the State He voiced, he said, the sentiment of l the better portion of the constituency which he represented MT. Scofield, the colleague of MT. Gillespie, is member of the Judiciary committee, and with the majority against the bill l He should be recreant to his duty if he should fail to advocate the minority bill
 Mir. Johnson, of Enfield, showed that the | proposed bill was direct reflections on the judges of the courts, and that it suggested that States attorneys for $5 would be more honest than the judges had been.
 l Mr. Scofield said the petitions which had been rejected were all insult to every judge ID the State who has any cognlzance of divorce trials. These petitions were not an honor to any man who had signed them. He denied that divorces in this State had been granted for insufficient causes and on insufficient ln- vestigation, and he challenged the citation of l a single case where the charge could be sus- tained MT. Scofeld explained the provision of the law now in force. He would ask Ii Rev. Leonard w. Bacon would divide the re- sponsibility between the State attorney and the judges of the Superior Court? The State attorney is under no oath to get at the facts in the case Under the proposed statute he is required to read over the complaint lie is in no sense a party to defend the State interests He is simply to receive $5 for reading over the complaint. He should doubt the propriety of the States taxing the appli- cants for divorce. If anything IS to be done, the laws should be revised.
 Mr. Coogan made a strong point against the bill by showing that ne provision IS made requiring the State's attorney to submit to the court the result of his examination He could keep man forever from getting di- vorce, no matter how much 1t ought to be granted Mir Coogan said he felt it duty as member of the Legislature to oppose the measure, and he cordially endorsed the posi- tion taken by Mir. Scofeld.
 Mr. Wright, of Branford, also opposed the passage of the measure.
 Mr. Owen, of Manchester, did not think the judges of the State going about with parliamentary chips on their shoulders as suggested by the gentleman from Enfield and the gentleman from Stamford. They were not looking for insults where insults were not intended. He felt it consistent with his convictions and judgment to support the bill Mir Robertson, of New Haven said as 8 member of the Judiciary committee he op- posed the bill, not because he was prejudlced | by the attacks of Rev. Leonard w. Bacon both in the pulpit and out of it, an attack on every man who appeared against the measure 1 He opposed the measure because With the l gentleman from Stamford ( eir. Scofeld) he believed it was ineffective and worthless.
 MT. Sanford of Bedding, supported the | bill
 The previous question was ordered, and or vote the minority report was substituted fol the majority.
 The passage of the bill was opposed by Mr. Northrop and MT. Johnson.
 At 1:4O the previous question was ordered on motion of MT. Johnson, and the bill was passed 1O7 to 52, the report of the majority being rejected.
 The House concurred with the Senate ir passing resolution authorizing the appoint ment of committee to investigate the course of Secretary Northrop in recommending dealers where books can be obtained.
 Mir. Gillette, of Waterbury, submitted the majority report of the Railroad committed on the petition of Marshall Jewell and others for charter for the New York, Connecticut and Boston road and moved that it be printed in the calendar; so ordered.
 l On motion of Mir. Cooley, the report of the minority was also ordered printed, and botE reports, with the resolution incorporating the road, were made the special order for Wednes day, March %, at 1O:30 Q. m.
 At 1:5O the House adjourned until 10 a. m | Thursday.