Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1883-04-20
THE MARRIAGE OF EX-GOVERNOR
SPRAGUE.

SPRAGUE.
LETTER FROM THE COUNSEL OF MRS.
KATE CHASE sPRAGUE.
CINCINNATI, O., April 18th. :.
To the Editor OF the Staunton Vintticator.
SIR A copy of your paper of the 18th
of March, 1883. has been place d in our
hands, from which il appears that William
Sprague, of Rhode Island, in order to pro-
cure license to marry again and to la
duce clergyman to perform the cereno-
ny, made certain statements in regard to
his divorced condition. to the Clerk of the
Court, to the Commemorative Attorney,
and to the Rev W. q. Hulliheu, all of your
city, which statements having been pub
lished by you, and being not only false but
also libelous of most honorable and
worthy lady, we. her counsel IN her suit
for divor CO from Gov. Sprague, feel it our
duty in justice to her to ask that you pub
lisb this statement of the facts i" the case
When Intercepted as to Its being lawfu
for him to marry. Gov. Sprague. AZ you
publish, responded: Il wish to state t"
.you the ground on which I was divorced
81 applied for divorce from my wife on
! 1.-THE ground of adultery. She filed q cross
"bill charging me with the same offense.
.sShe. after short while withdrew her
"charges against me. / did not withdraw
mime; they remained, and on that stand
ting of the case the court IN New York
"grauted me divorce, and divided the
"custody of the children. What is your
"opinion 81
You add that: ION the return IF the
clergyman and Mr.. Echols to the hotel,
''Gov. Sprague answered the questions
(which had been. for greater caution,
written down by Mr.. Hullihen, satisfac-
''torily in view of the requirements of the
''canon bearing on the case -
"These are the questions answered -
"Q.-Are you divorced man or motif
'Answer.-I am divorced.
"Q.-Please state the grounds upon
(which the divorce was granted?
''A.-Adultery.
"Q.-Was this charged upon your d.
VOrceO wire or yOurself!
"A.-Upon my wife.
"Q.-Was there any such charge proved
against you in the proceedingl
"A.-There was not"
II is difficult for US to believe that any
one deliberately made these statements,
as they are entirely without truth, yet we
have seen as yet no contradiction of the
report.
The facts are that Mrs. Katherine Chase
Sprague applied to the Supreme Court of
Rhode Island for divorce from Gov'r
Sprague, alleging repeated adulteries, cru
city, and neglect to provide for herself and
their children, though abundantly able to
do so; the latter charge itself being suf-
6clent cause for divorce under the Stat
utes of Rhode Island, and Gov. Sprague
answered by petition, making various al
legations against his wife.
The testimony of many witnesses estab-
fishing the truth of Mrs. Sprague's COM
plant was promptly taken, and she was
ready for trial at an early date, but upon
one pretext and another and against her
opposition, the trial was postponed
throughout year, without apparent prep
j ara tion by him. Finally. we attended the
court at South Kingston. r. l., February
! Goth, 1882, fully prepared for trial, with
dispositions taken and numerous witnesses
in court to support every allegation in our
bill. The court decided that the trial
must proceed, whereupOn, Gov. Sprague
and his counsel approached us, proposing
to withdraw their petition and all charges
against Mrs Sprague, if she would waive
proof of adultery against him, and consent
to let the cause be tried on the remaining
grounds of cruelty and non-support. Gov.
Sprague then furnished Judge Hoadley
with q written retractiOn of all charges
against his wife to he given to her after
the decree Of divorce should be granted.
knowing that Mrs. Sprague had no OBJ
ject except to secure her decree and to
protect her children from discredit as far
as possible consistently with justice and
right, we, her counsel, having procured by
telegram her authority to act at our dis
erection, assumed the responsibility for her
of waving the charges of adultery and
cruelty and allowing the case to rest on
the less offensive charge. Following this
conference Gov. Sprague's counsel in open
court, Sprague being present, and before
the trial withdrew his petition and all the
allegations it contained. Thereupon tes-
timOny was introduced which established
m thGa ut of no no
Sprague had failed to support his wife and
daughters although abundantly able to do
SO, nd on this ground decree of alb sOlute
divorce was granted in favor OF Mrs.
Sprague, with permission at her discretion
to resume her maiden name of Katherine
Chase, privilege seldom granted in Rhode
Island, and never when cloud rests upon
the fair repute of lady. The court also
awarded the custody of the three younger
children, daughters, to the mother, the
remaining child, a boy near manhood. not
being subject under the laws of Rhode
Island to the control If the court in such
an action.
The consideration extended to Governor
Sprague was fully acknowledged. He pro-
posed to surrender and deliver. and did
execute written agreement to deliver to
Austin Corbin. Esq, of New York, a rela-
tive Of Mrs. Sprague, as trustee for the
children, the personal property at Canon
Chef.
We add that but for the withdra wal by
Gov. Sprague of all charges against his
wife, and also of his petition, We should not