New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-03-29
THEORIES or MARRIAGE.

We have some remarkable commentaries
from the West upon the recent address of DR..
Dix on the subject of Divorce. The laxty of
American practice IN the matter Of marriage
has long been n scandal to tho Christian world,
and the statistic, of our shame are never held
mn 10 view without filling good people with
sorrow and alarm. But public opinion makes
70 earnest prutcst against the abuse; society
hardly attempts to dscountenauce 1t. Must
we conclude that the American people are not
really anxious for reform, but that the laws,
bad a. they are, arr only what we wish them to
beP DR.. Dix traced the root of the evil to the
Protestant theory that marriage is not relig.
ious rite but purely civil contract-a theory
from which it would seem to follow that the
tie between husband aud wife, like any other
mutual agreement might properly be broken
by mutual consent, or abrogated by judicial
authority if either party violated the terms OF
the contract The incidents ut the West to
which we have referred make it doubtful, how
ever. whether even the contract theory is gem
orally entertained so far rs to be accepted as a
rule of conduct.
Tie San Francisco Bulletin comments upon
tbe affairs of Ex-Governor Sprague, who, hav-
ing been divorced without liberty to marry
again, does nevertheless marty lady wh0has
also been divorced. and the ceremony Is per-
formed by an Epscouaian clergyman who is
forbidden by his Church to celebrate such
marriage In perfect good faith and uncon-
seriousness, The Bulletin treats this event, in
connection with Mr.. Spragues temperance in
notifies as highly credlable attempt To re-
trieyc disastrous career. He has married
"again-in short, Sprague seems to have taken
y IA new departure. SpTaguo sober, ioth no
matrimonial difficulties Oh the road to the
GGovernorship of his State, with friends rallying
garound him ready and willing TO give him
- lift. appears in quite different character
sOnly man who has good stuff in him can
successfully make such n turn as this So
then scandaous divorce and scandalOus
remarriage are very proper prelude to can
vass for the Governorship. and leading news
paper gravely accepts them as the beginning
of reform. We wonder what this writer's
theory of marriage can be. Something like
boarding perhaps.
California furnishes the second comment
upon IN. Dix also. AZ the last session OF the
Legislature of that State bill was introduced
in the Senate TO make divorce in certain
cases compulsory 1t provides that wien
husband and wife have lived apart, "hy agree
ment or otherwise for at least four years, the
people of the State of California, "upOn the
relation OF any citizen may bring an action of
divorce against both husband and wife and if
il appear that they have lived apart for four
years, and tina: neither has brought IN action of
divorce against the other within four years of
their separation, then the Court shall " dis
solve the marriage, aud may in its discretion
provide for the support of the wife and chill
dren "as may be reasonable and just" Ii
would be difficult to devise more dangerous
assault upon the family than this. 1t would
enable an interested relative, or n malicious
person, to divorce an aftectionate couple
against their will. IL would make it easy for a
man to get rid of his wife by simply deserving
her, and hiring some blackguard ut the end of
four years to persOnate the people of California
in an action for compulsory divorce. The
Court would have no discretion to inquire into
anything further than the fact that husband
and wife had lived four years apart, "by
agreement or otherwise" The bill in fact
combines the license of free divorce with the
grossest invasion of family rights by the State
authority. 1t is at once licentluus and tyran-
nical in the highest degree. 1t does not appear
from our California exchanges that the bill
reached vote but the fact that it was intro
duced by the chairman of the Judiciary Com
mittee of the Senate OF great State is dis
graceful enough. And now what can be this
gentlcmans theory of marriages. Clearly he
does not think of it as n contract. We are told
that he Is a lawyer He does not suppose that
O contract can be abrogated against the will OF