Daily Kennebec journal., 1883-02-10

had administered this law. What surprised
him most was. that after having administered
it in a loose way for so many years. they
should come and ask, as ST Paul said, to be
saved from themselves. Was this not true?
The law now says it must appear to them
reasonable and proper before they can di-
vorce." Had they been doing what was not
reasonable and proper" all this time?
They must also be satisfied that it
is conducive to domestic harmony"
Had they had due regard to domestic
harmony all these wears? Aud such divorce
must also be consistent with the peace and
morality of society," Had they had due re-
gard for the peace and morally
of society all these years? He considered the
present law the very best that could possibly
be framed upon the subject Under il a di-
vorce would be granted when reasonable
and proper, conducive to domestic harmony
and consistent with the peace and morality of
society" And why shouldn't ii? Upon these
conditions depends the advancement of the
human race, more than upon anything else.
If the judges of the court dared not trust
themselves with the exercise Of this judicial
function, perhaps the time would come when
other judges would take their places who
would not be afraid Of this responsibility.
lie then proceeded TO criticise the provisions
of the bill, and said tina: when he first locked
at it it occurred to him that it had been
cooked up for the purpose of getting more
lawyers fees.
Mr.. Hale of Portland spoke of the impor-
tance of the subject, and said there could be
no question that our State had acquired a
notorietv in the matter that was foul and bad.
The public had become alarmed, and it was
the duty of the legislature 10 provide rem
edy. The bill had received the careful at
tention of the Judiciary Committee
and in the main he thought it
one that ought to pass. There was but one
element in it that he would amend He did
not believe that the multiplicity of divorces in
this State was owing to the discretion which
is lodged in the court, but to certain social
conditions which could not be gone over in
this debate. He thought some discretion
could be safely left with the court, and he
would allow them to grant divorce when
they considered it reasonable, proper and
consistent with domestic harmony. because
he did not believe it possible to put into a
bill all the causes that ought to divorce
husband and wife. He did not believe leg
islators could have in their minds, all the
heights and debts of depravity that men and
women have and exercise, and which should
divorce them from the marriage relation.
For the sake of these things he believed some
discretion should be left in the hands of
discreet court. He did not think society
would be safe without it. He then offered
an amendment to cover his point and moved
that the bill and amendment be laid on the
table and assigned for Wednesday next.
Mr.. Moore of Thomaston objected to ami
moved to strike out sec. 4, which prohibits
;hal ant wi ifhip frn
after decree of divorce, except on per-
mission of the court. and that the libelee
shall not marry again within two years from
the divorce, and then only on permission of
the court.
Mr.. Talbot of East Machias favored the
amendment offered by the gentleman from
Portland Mr.. Hale. He explained that the
committee was divided on the point of How
ing the court discretionary powers. If the
amendment was not adopted he would do
what he could to defeat the bill.
Mr. Hail of Rockland opposed the amend
ment offered by the gentleman from Port
land. 1t was simply putting into the bill the
discretionary power which is already the law,
and which the measure is intended to strike
out.
Mr. Thompson of Brunswick moved to
amend by striking from the last line of sec.
4, the words ''then only and inserting the
words mot afterwards except" He offered
this to make clearer what was evidently in
tended by the authors of the bill.
Mr.. Hall had no objection to the amend
ment.
Mr.. Heath of Augusta, as a member of the
majority of the committee reporting the bill,
opposed the motion to strike out sec. 4. He
deemed this to be the important part of it
He related an aggravated case of crime, and
subsequent divorce by the guilty parties
which could not have occurred if the 4th sec,
had been the law. He declared that if he
could cast vote that would restrict, as he
believed the bill would, to one-half of the
divorces in the State, he should feel that he
had done one honest thing in this legislature.
Mr.. Moore called attention to provisions of
the bill forbidding marriage of divorced par
ties. and to the decisions, as he understood
them, which hold marriages contracted in one
State, binding in all the other States. The
bill provided for an absolute divorce at the
expiration of six months from the entry of
the decree. and the party had but to go out of
the State to contract legal marriage. and the
4th sec. would be of no avail. There might
pos ,ibly be in the decisions of the court some
limitation, but he was not aware of any. He
declared himself in favor of the strongest
divorce laws, and was very much of the opin-
ion that there should be law to require
a States attorney to appear for the libellee
that there might be no default
Mr.. Heath gave notice of an amendment
that he would offer so that sec. should not
take away from the Superior Court in Ken
nebec county, its jurisdiction in divorce cases.
The bill was then laid on the table, the
amendments were ordered to be printed, and
Wednesday next was assigned for further
consideration.
On motion of Mr.. Heath Of Augusta. the
House reconsidered its vote accepting the
report of the Committee on Mercantile
Affairs and Insurance, reporting legislation
inexpedient on order relating to amending
chap. 40 of the revised statutes, so as to
prevent the liability of excessive insurance.
rhe report was laid on the table.
Adjourned until Monday at ii o'clock.