Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1883-03-23
DIVORCE, AGAIN.

iivorce is somewhat sharply criticised. With
,lr. Arthur, let us consider as briefly as may |
be some of the leading questions involved in
he discussion. And first as to the scriptural
view of divorce. We said in our former ar
ice that to attempt to apply the scriptural
'ulc In the present state of society would be
both wrong and impracticablc. Whys In
hose carly days woman had no rights what
ever She was merely the slave Of despotic
lord. Nowhere in the Bible can anything
DC found as TO a woman's getting divorce
from her husband. Such thing was not
is n possibility by the Jewish
lawmakers and their successors down to the
Christian era All the scriptural law on the
subject is on one side-that Of the husband.
The husband had practically unlimited power
over his wife, and in the lapse Of time it
came to pass that he could divorce her for
any cause and without any cause. Aud 1t
was to remedy this state Of affairs that Christ
declared that man should not divorce his
wife except for adultery. The wife being a
slave, the husband could lawfully extend TO her
that ''intolerablc severity" for which modern
law now gives her divorce and could twill
fully desert her and society being po-
lygam Gus, adultery on the part of the man
hardly entered into the question at all. On
the other hand, that woman could use
her husband with intolerable severity W as
thing inconceivable in the East, and impos-
sible and to wilfully desert him was as i'm
practicable as 1t would be tor q sailor to de
grounds of divorce, then, had no existence
In Bible times and hence of course are not
alluded to. But in these happier days wom-
an has risen from the position Of slave to
perfect equality with man, and with the gain
of freedom she has gained the rights that ac
company it and are an inalienable part of it.
Therefore we think that the attempt to en-
force the old Oriental rule, in vogue when
society was polygamous, when the husband
was lord and the wife a slave-a law which
gave all rights and oil powers to the man and
crushed the woman just as her master ground
her into the dus.-to modern times, when So
ciety is homogeneous and husband and wife
are recognized as equals and woman is no
longer slave, is unjust and wrong and I'M
practicable. 1t is fact too seldom recog-
nized in the discussion of this question, that
the scrptural law is all on one side. 1t no.
where acknowledges that women have any
rights TO maintain or any wrongs to redress !;
and this because women were slaves and
slaves have no rights which their masters are
bound 10 respect The glaring abuses of
this system led to the declaration that u man
should not divorce his wife except for adul-
terry but nothing was said as to the wifc's
rights because in the state of society then
existing she had none.
So much for the scriptural view of the
matter. Our esteemed correspondent seems
to grant that some Of the modern grounds
for divorce are justified by the Bible doc
trinc, but thinks that divorced persons ough
not to be permitted to marry again. we
differ from him entirely, and for these rea-
sion to remarry is to pass upon them SEN
tence of perpetual celibacv, and that is a
form of punishment which can find no au-
thorization in either law or reason. If one
of the parties to the divorce is proved guilty
of adultery, punish him for that crime; or
if proved guilty of assaults upon his wife,
let him be punished for that offence but
why should he be made TO undergo an extra
judicial punishment which resembles the
subtle fortunes inflicted by medieval juris-
prudence rather than the penalties for wrong
doing which the enlightened policy OF mod
ern law inhicts. And then again it is con-
trary to good morals and sound public
policy to have among us class who are not
permitted TO marry. The church and the
State may prevent divorces and may pre-
vent remarrages but they can hardly con-
troll the eternal instincts of human nature
And were they 10 carry into effect the per-
petual-celibaoy plan, the morals OF the
country would suffer tremendous
blow from the evils that would be
sure to ensue. Such subjects ought
to discussed not from the stand
point of what ought to be, but from the
standpoint of what is: and it is at this iden-
tcal point that most of the clergymen make
their great mistake-clergymen whose char
acter we respect and with whose main object
we sympathize, but whose reasoning we can
not follow and whose ultimate conclusions
we can not grant.
So much for what seem TO be Mr. Arthur's
main points. AS for the practical part of
the matter, it seems to us that the law in this
State at least is as good as moderate men
can desire, and that heretofore the trouble
has been not so much with the law us with its
enforcement. The courts have unquest.ona-
bly, been TOO lax too many divorces have
been obtained by collision and fraud, and too
many on grounds wholly insufficient. But
the courts are becoming more careful and
are making more rigid scrutiny, and the
number of divorces granted ia steadily de-
creasng. The great need of the country, as
we have hitherto said, is uniformity Of
divorce laws in all the States. If that could
once he brought about, the statistics of d.
vorcc would present face much less alarm
ing than at present. And in working for
this end in calling the courts to stricter
responsibility, and In rigidly enforcing the
laws now on the statute book the divorce
rcformers have the warmest sympathy of
mos. thinking men.
SENATOR EDMUNDS.
ssTlle Republican Leader OF whom the
Whole Party IL PrOud.H
From Ilarper's Weekly