Saturday press. [volume] (Honolulu, H.I.) 1880-1885, 1883-05-26
rBE DIroRcE QUESTION:.

THE DTrORCE QUESTION.
Since Doctor his made his assault On thcdi
vorcc laws ofthe country, the question has at
ttac'ed more than u.u3l attention. anda hewitt
cratrrc on the subject isgrowing up. The latest
toH,rihntionsappcar inthe North American Re.
yicw, and arc from the pens u Rev. DR.. 1hco.
dorc u. Woolsey and Judge John a. jameson.
| I hey more fully represent the liberal churchly
sentiment on the one hand, and the liberal Sc.
cular sentiment on the other, than any papers
on the subject Of recent issuance, and are
worthy concise presentation as PREDATORY to fu.
turc independent consideration
The former discusses the question from a
religious standpoint, and while plainly indca.
| ting his personal opinion that the marriage re
atiDn and It's indissolublc character should OBJ
tain such greater sanctity in the eyes Of the law
| that divorce shall be rendered all but impossi.
bic save for one cause, he yet admits the great
| difficulties 10 be met in arriving at that desde
ratum, and therefore hesitatingy advises res
friction Of absolute divorce to the single cause
| Of adultery. His conclusions are that the law
| should grant absolute divorce for adultery only,
and should prohibit rcmarrage Of the guilty
| party, and that this prohibition will greatly
| eliminate the premium for the crime itself lie
| finds from an examination Of the statistics that
an increase in the number OF causes for di
vorce granted by law increases, at least for
| long period, the number Of divorces themselves;
| that separations are not 80 much IN demand as
divorces when the law permits them for similar
causes; that to grant separations without leave
! to remarry is not so disastrous to family life as
| to grant divorces, as the latter but spread the
evil Tor which they are provided as remedy.
| He bclivcs, therefore, that such separations
may, withou, conflict with the feeling or faith
OF the great majority Of Christian believers, be
granted for gross violations Of matrimonial
duties and in this takes issue with the cxtrem-
lists, the church, Lastly he demands stricte
procedure in courts in divorce cases, and
greater severity on the part of judges.
Judge Jameson, on his side, discusses the
question from legal standpoint, and preiaces
his paper with defense of Chicago courts.
| The greater liberality Of divorce for other
causes than adultery he believes to be step in
the general movement for greater social free
dom which characterizes our modern age. The
church and the secular theories regarding di-
vorce rest upon differing conceptions OF the ma
ture Of marriage, while third theory considers
the interest not only Of the parties, but OF the
| state in the matter Of its dissolution. So he
holds that for the church divorce is a religious
question only and for the state merely social
question, and subject to public authority.
| Where the indissolubility Of the marriage rela.
ton is held to be absolute, the parties are led
to defy law and religion and sink into fragrant
immortality. On the other hand, too great
axity Of restriction tends to make all marital
differences rreconciable. II the rule be estab.
lshcd that divorce will be allowed only al
heavy cost for serious causes and with social
ignominy will it justify itself1 To ascertain
this he examines at length the results of such
rules under the restricted system Of the canon
law We cannot enter into a view OF his cita-
tons and statistics; but the conclusions OF the
urist are, that experience does not furnish tes-
timony favorable to the strict law, but does
condemn the laxity OF the law and the practice
in many Of the states of the union. He shows
that the church originally granted divorce for
adultery only on the part of the wife, but when
the rule was extended to both sexes, it was
confined to a separation. The sincerity OF the
church was then questioned because it winked
at infraction of the supposed divine law, and
hence came the dissolution Of the bonds ofmat-
Iimony. He holds that cruelty amounting TO
brutality works great an injury to the relation
as adultery, and as completely defeats the one
great object Of marriage-the right training of
offspring So, too, for habitual drunkenness
and wlful and continued desertion, intolerabe
injuries that society cannot permit to go for
nothing But while this is to be said in favor
Of liberal divorces, there is no question as to
the great extent of fraudulent divorces, collu.
sion to obtain DEGREES, and looseness Of proce-
dure and the Judge is forced to admit, as Doctor
Wolseley has urged, that in the greatest num-
Der of cases the courts realize that II the par
ties were held together by an iron bond, max
ing divorce impossible for any cause, they
would at an early stage of marital differences
effect reconciliations. His suggestions then,
are, so to modify court procedure as to reduce
fraud and collision to the minimum; make the
punishment of the guilty party highly punitory,
and correct the public sentiment on the sub
ject of divorce by extending the period of juris-
dictional domicil SO as TO repel immigration for
the purpose Of divorce; by requiring actual scr
vice of process or actual proof Of inability to
ascertain the residence; by making all third
parties interested, the children and the public,
parties to the cause; require that they be rep
resented by guardians for the children al hfsm
and by counsel for the others; and by requiring
the states attorney TO defend for the public all
divorce cases. In cases of desertion he would
have the court vested with power to compel
return, il petitioner is the wife and requests it,
and on the husbands refusal to resume the re-
lation, to commit him to prison II he deserted
without reasonable cause. To carry out this
scheme would require federal enactments as to
acquisitions for the person. "Why should they
not be granted foI husband, when the ma.
chinery of the state and nation may be set in
motion to catch the thief who steals twenty.
dollar watch ?" asks the judge, with grim
facetiousness. Lastly, he would, for adultery,
prohibit remarriage Of the guilty, and would
by law, precept and example have greater
sanctity thrown about the marriage relation,
not in an ecclesiastical sense, but in that OF the
highest social obligation that binds the con-
science of man of honor and honesty.-.Saf.
yanssto Record Union.