National Republican., 1886-10-04
his PoLJrIC,s ouJG"rIoNABuE.
Why Mrs. Intinm H,Cu,vd to Live
Nuh tier Husband.

Nuh tier Husband.
tl'lcr burs lmrS.A Ag,~LI
Several yeats ago, suul after oar state
Government had been rc-cstablisael, Mis-.
X. T.. Latham. VI Lyuchbury, suet for O
divorce from her husband. IL was refused,
ard, on appeal TO the supreme court ot ap-
peals, the decision Of the court below was
sustained. We now see that Mr.. Il. E.
Latham has recently sued for q divorce
from Mrs. Latham and succceded-pre-
eumabiy on the ground OF desertion, as she
has refused to live with him since the orlgi.
nal disagreement returning to her family
and friends In Kentucky, where Mr.. Latham
married her.
there is no spice Of scandal in this case,
hut IL is cause celcbrC-unique perhaps
ON account Of the grounds upon which Mrs.
Latham originally based her petition, and
because II is striking illustration OF At
lease one phase Of our social aud political
temper and manner just after war and re-
construction had left us poor, proud, preJu-
diced, and pcevish.
Mrs. Latham's petition, stripped Of its
circumlocutiOu and Illogical detail, de.
msnded n divorce because her husband had
changed his politics aud became Republi-
can Don't laugh; for it was no laughing
matter either to her or to him, at that date,
and. besides, at least one Of the grave and
reverend seigniors Of our highest legal trlb-
unal actually supported her application,
and for the very reason alleged.
OF course, the petition set forth, vollmi-
nously, the evil consequences which hal
ensued TO the aggrieeyed lady by the heresy
sued, with all its humiliations, mortiica-
tlons, and multiplied disaiyant iges.
Friends and even relatives turned cold
shoulders and closed their doors. Her own
feelings were outraged, as she declared, Mt
what she considered the perli1y OF her com
panion in his section, race, family and as
sociates. It. was breach of the implied
contract with her, us she had accepted the
relation she bore 10 him heclusc in pUt)
of connections which he voluntarily ablh
uoned, TO her great grief and loss. All
the new associations into whch she WIS
thrown by the change were dstasteful to
her, aud her health aud life, If MT her san.
fly, were threatened by the strain put upon
her mind, nerves, aud sensibilit'es.
Such was the basis Of the petition, and
Judge Anderson, Of the court OF appeals, IN
dissenting from his fellow judges, gayo an
extended and solemn opinion in writing
(now of record in our Virginia Rep)rts)
sustaining the petition aud celebrating It's
points II never occurred to the iGdGe any
more than IL did to the lady that the res9On'
sibility for the ills she complained OF lay
her: II seems never to have occurrei To
either that Mr.. Latham was really more a
victim than she herself her misfortunes
being merely indirect results of the perseru-
tion and prescription aimed directly at him;
and both ignored the fact that Mr. Lath IN
had but exercised his first and highest right
as a free American citizen In adopting what
ever party and political platform he chose,
with full assurance, as far rs law and In
stitutions go, that none should molcst
him nor make him (or his wife) afraid.
The intolerance that boycotted him aud
her was the real wrong against both,
and the parties to that wrong we're the true
offenders, II any, against whom suit for re-
lief or damages should have been brought
as the Messrs. Baughmans, OF Richmond,
have sued the Richmond Typographlca
Union for boycotting them. II either Of the
Baughmans Is married, his wife would be no
more absurd in applying for divorce from
MIN on account of the evils to her OF this
typographical boycott than was Mrs. La.
than in basing her petition on the social
boycott against Mr.. Latham.
IL is very curious case, and, as II is fully
given In our Law Reports, together with
Judge Anderson's remarkable opinion, II
will remain forever monumental evidence
OF a passionate and preiudiccd intolerance
which even now many declare never existed
among us.