The San Antonio light. (San Antonio, Tex.) 1883-1886, 1883-10-19
DIVORCE.
Adirondack Murray Advocating More
Liberal Laws And Denying the Right
of Church Interference.

Adirondack Murray Advocating More
Liberal Laws And Denying the Right
of Church Interference.
Because New England is in advance Of the
other sections Of the country-because' there
woman has, in the progress Of civilization, be-
come more Of unit than Of a cipher in her
indiyidualiiy-is the reason that more divorces
are granted there than in any other section.
This was the theory advanced by w. II. II.
Murray in his lecture in Chickering hall last
evening. 1t may be unnecessary 10 state tina,
he has dropped the prefix "Rev.," which has
in past years decorated bills announcing his
appearance. As to stomach, he has filed out
beyond his former circumference; as to hair,
there is greater profusion of gray locks, and
the same is true Of his moustache.
Mr.. Murray seemed to speak last evening
with less animation, his gestures we're more
limited, as he was more confident as TO his
notes than in the days when he was Boston's
most famous pulpit orator. These things
may be in part due to the fact that the hall
was only about half filed and the audience
did not accord hearty reception to the sent-
ments uttered. lie appeared as an advocate
o
the "omnibus clause" which existed on the
statute books Of all the New England States
except New Hampshire in 1885, Of secret di-
vorces, and as an opponent of restrictive legis-
lation, ecclesiastical interference, and the
theory Of ex-President Woolsey, of Yale col
lege, that the increase Of divorces is due to loose
legislation and that the multiplicity of causes
for which divorces may be granted has a
tendency to corrupt public virtue and bring
the marital relation into disrepute. His text
was that marriagei is personal contract, sane
toned by the State and blessed by the church.
II is civil in its character Neither the State
nor the church can act as party to making a
contract purely personal. This being its
character, divorce is a severance Of that con-
tract again sanctioned by the State through
its courts as is the dissolution Of any other
contract between PERSONS. As ecclesiastical
law has no existence in this country, the
church has no place in the divorce question,
except to say within itself what position par
ties who may be dishonored in the severance
Of the martial ties should hold in regard to
its membership.
The dssolubility of the marriage relation,
Mr.. Murray asserted, was taught by Jesus,
who permitted il on the ground of adultery
Pane, who, it is claimed, was an inspired
teacher, added desertion to the permissible
causes for divorce, and TO these Luther,
Melancthon, Calvin and other Christian
teachers added the commission of a
heinous crime by either party TO a mar
rage, cruelty and desertion, Calvin ia
voring the granting OF divorce for the latter
cause after desertion of only a year and a
neglect by the husband to support his wife
and family. New York State permitted divorce
only for scriptural causes, adultery and de-
sertiou. The ecclesiastical party, in the agi-
tation Of the divorce question, asked that the
| law Of the land should be made so as to pre-
vent divorces for any other cause. 1t asked
that unhappiness resulting from a personal
contrast-not from a sacrament within its
control-should be continued forever for a
woman who was so unfortunate as to have en-
| tered into a contract which bound her to q
man who might be habitual drunkard, who
might beat aad abuse her, who might neglect
her because they were allied in temperament
and who might have nothing in common, or
who might be beast who thought only OF his
wife as plaything or creature OF his pas
sions. When woman was bound to such a
man, the clerical party would say to her
"You must live and suffer with him; you may
find no happiness in a home with one con.
genial to you; you must be tied to him unit
death releases you" The woman, he held
should have the right to ask for and obtain q
legal dissolution OF a contract she had entered
into, and no safer place to put the severance
Of such contracts existed than in the hands o.
the Supreme courts of the State, where il
every case there should be a fair hearing
and a searching investigation before
petition for divorce should be granted
As the marriage was a contract privately
entered into, Mr. Murray said, so should also
be the dissolution matter of privacy. Tn,
constant publication of the nauseatng detail,
was source Of injury TO public morals, in hi
opinion, than the granting of hundreds o
divorces privately and the drawing OF a vel
over the details which led to the severance o
an existing contract. The States duty wa
ended when it saw that in the severance o
the marital relations no personal rights wer
molested, no social laws violated. The pub
lie had no right to know Of the severance O
the contract or its causes. 1t was the bust
ness alone Of the courts and the parties to tn
contract. The problem was one that woul
work itself out on this basis. Woman wa
assuming her place as a unit in the family,
party with rights in the contract. When thi
right was fully recognized marriages would b
more carefully entered into, and with the be,
ter education and the PRONUNCIATION of III
modern idea marriage would naturally be
come sacrament, indissolube and eternal
| w.