Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-04-03
Two VIEWS OF TIE DIVORCE CUES
TON.


Since DR.. Dix has made the assault-al-
ready considered in these columns-upon
the divorce laws of the country, the ques-
ticn has attracted more than usual atten.
ton, and new literature on the subject is
growing up. The latest contributions ap.
pear in the North american Revie,0. and
are from the pens of Rev. DR.. Theodore
ID. Woolsey and Judge John A. Jameson.
Tney more fully represent the liberal
churchly sentiment on the one hand and
the liberal secular sentiment on the other,
than any papers on the subject of recent
Issuance, and are worthy concise presenta-
ton as PREDATORY to future independent
consideration.
The former discusses the question from
a religious standpoint, and while plainly
indicating his personal opinion that the
marriage relation and its indissoluble char
acter should obtain such greater sanctity
In the eyes of the law that divorce shall
be rendered all but impossible save for one
cause, be yet admits the great difficulties
to be met in arriving at that desideratum,
and therefore hesitasiugly advises restric.
ton 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
remsrriage Of the guilty party,
and that this prohibition will
greatly eliminate the premium for the
crime itself. He finds from an examina.
tion Of the statistics that an increase in
the number of causes for divorce granted
by law increases, at least for long period,
the number Of divorces themselves; that
separations are not so much in demand as
divorces when the law permits them for
similar causes that to grant separations
without leave to remarry Is not so disas-
trous to family life as to grant divorces, as
the latter but spread the evil for which
they are provided as remedy. He be-
lieyes, therefore, that such separations
may, without 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 extremists of the church. Lastly,
he demands stricter procedure in Courts in
divorce cases, and greater severity on the
part of judges.
Judge Jameson, on his side, discusses
the question from a legal standpoint, and
prefaces his paper with defense of Chi
csgo Courts. The greater liberality CT
divorce for other causes than adnl-
terry he believes to be a step in
the general movement for great
err social freedom which characterizes
our modern age. The church and the secu-
lar theories regarding divorce rest upon
differing conceptions of the nature of mar
riage, while third theory considers the
interest not only of the parties, but of the
state, in the matter of it's dissolution. So
he holds that for the church, divorce is q
religious question only, and for the state
merely 8 social question, and subject to
public authority. Where the indissolu-
bijity of the marriage relation is held to be
absolute. the parties are led to defy law
and religion and sink into fragrant i'm
morslity. On the other hand, too great
l.xity of restriction tends to make all mari
cal differences irreconcilable. If the rule
be established that divorce viii be allowed
only at heavy cost, for serious causes and
with social ignomiDy, will it justify itselfs
To ascertain this he examines at length the
results of such rules under the restricted
svstem of the canon law. We cannot
enter into review of his citations and sta
tistics but the conclusions of the jurist
are. that experience does not furnish testi-
mony favorable to the strict law, but does
condemn the laxity of the law and the
prsctice in many of the States OF the Union.
He shows that the church originally
Granted divorce for adultery only on the
mart Of the wife. but when the rule was ex-