The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1883-12-14

No Divorces lN SoUru CARoLINA.-lt will be
sad mistake to make any provision whatever
for granting divorces. on any terms, in South
Carolina. There never was Divorce law in the
State until the Republicans enacted such n law
in the .tirue of their corrupt aud degrading
dominion. When the white people of tn, State
returned to power, the Divorce law was prompt
ly repealed.
10 argument has been advanced in support Of
the divorce system that has any weight. in face
Of the crushing fact that, the whole world over,
the sanc.ity # the marriage tie is in direct pro
portion 10 the difficulty in procuring its dissolu-
ton. 1t stands to reason that when divorces
can be obtained easily there is temptation to
seek divorces without adequate cause. When it
is once admitted that marriage is not for better,
for worse, until death US do part" there is
encouragement to seek divorce and even to
commit the otfenses which can be made the
means Of cnsuring it.
Nowhere crimes growing out of unwilling
ness to hear the responsibilities of motherhood
more rife than in New England, where the di>
vorce business runs riot. There is barely any
increase in the population. outside of the in
crease by Immigration and through citizens of
foreign birth One marriage in every fifteen is
dissolved Is that wholesome? Is that bene-
fetal d? Is that what the South Carolina Legsla.
ture would open the doors to? There is no way
of nrresiing the downward march, when it is
once conceded that divorces, for any cause, may
or should bc granted. Hedge in the law with
restrictions and limitations to-day and year by
year its scope will he made larger and its opera
tons more injurious. Ina short time South
Earolina society would be marred and stained
by such horrible exhibitions of the working of
divorce as are described soSoflen in the pages of
the Northern press.
South Carolina needs no change in the law
There is no demand for divorce legislation. For
the sake of the children in the State for the sake
ofthose whom divorce leaves iathcrless or moth
crle's, the General Assembly should save the
Statute book from the deflement Of Divorce
bill. For the sake of white society, threatened
in many ways and on different pretexts, the
legislature should siernly refuse to hear the
rleadngs Of those who would make the mar
riage lie rs loose pair Of old slippers. to he
worn for pleasure and slipped off Mt will. In
tho name ofthe white people we speak; but, five
turn to the colored people, we find far greater
need there for uncompromisng adherence to
the old practice. The colorea people are prone
to regard marriage AS temporary arrangement
which be dissolved at any time by either of
the contracting parties. They will flock to the
Courts for divorces. if divorces are permitted.
One of their worst faults will be fostered and
strengthened. There is, therefore. every con-
ceivabe cause to keep South Carolina in the
proud position Of being the only State in the
Union in which marriage. lawfully contracted,
is indissoluble except by death. This, we doubt
not. will he the determination of the Legislature
Of The Siale.--NecS and Courier.