Morning journal and courier., 1883-03-17
Saturday, March 17, 1888.
THE DIVORCE QUESTION.

THE DIVORCE QUESTION. very interesting and timely discussion of
 the divorce question appears in the current
 number of the North American Regieao. The
 writers are the venerable Dr. Theodore D.
 Woolsey of this city, who has long and ably
 battled against the loose notions of divorce
 that are now so popular, and Judge John A.
 Jameson, a iurist whose long experience with divorce cases in Chicago, both on the bench and at the bar, lends to his observations special value.
 In his article Dr. Woolsey goes over the ground very thoroughly and reaches the fol- lowing conclusions CD An increase in the number of causes for divorce granted by law increases, at least for long period, the num- Der of divorces themselves. But separations are by no means so much in demand as are divorces when the law permits them to be granted for similar causes. CD To grant separations without leave of remarriage is not so disastrous to family life as to grant divorces, which but spread the evil for which they are provided as 8 remedy. Such separa tions may be granted for gross violations of matrimonial duties without coming into con- fict with the feeling or faith of the great ma jority of Christian believers. (3) But, to grant divorce, except for adultery, does come into conflict with the faith and discipline of large bodies of Christians. This is a very se- rious evil. It holds out relief which mul titudes are taught to believe to be unlawful. It destroys the dread which breaking up and reconstituting families is fitted to excite. If .k H. order to obtain relief which could not oth- erwise be obtained, there are or can be laws which will make such 8 step costly to one who takes it. (4) There is a common and we fear well grounded opinion that the pro- cedure of many courts in divorce cases is very loose. This, if it be true, evinces want of due regard for the most sacred things among men, without the protection of which there could be no morals and no religion. We fear that the number of di- vorces cannot be Iessened without stricter action on the part of the judges.
 Judge Jameson does not take exactly the same view of the question that Dr. Woolsey does, but he is by no means in favor of ''easy divorce" He thinks that vast numbers of di- vorces are granted which ought not to be He would have the proceedings in divorce cases so modified as to reduce fraud and col fusion to minimum, and would have the consequences of decree made highly puni- tory to the guilty party. He says: To per init both divorced parties to marry again is to place a premium upon the commission of the offences by law made the grounds of di- vorce In cases of desertion it should be provided that, if the complainant be wife, the court should have power to grant the divorce, or, at her option, to con- tinue the case, to await her application for requisition to compel her husband to return and resume the performance of his marital duties. Upon his undertaking to do so, he might be discharged, upen reasonable condi- tions as to future conduct or, upon his re- fusal, he might be ordered to be commit ed to prison, if it should appear that he had ab- sented himself from her without reasonable cause and against her will
 We commend the views of Dr. Woolsey and Judge Jameson to the attention of some of the young lawyers of this city who are not backward in advocating increased freedom of divorce rather than any restriction upon it, and we gently but firmly remind them (the young lawyers aforesaid) that it is possi- ble for them to learn something from the careful and weighty utterances contained in the two articles frem which we have quoted.