The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-12-18
WHERE DIVORCE IS UNKNOWN.
Marriage Indissoluble in South Caro-
lima.
From the Ne,s York Herald

From the Ne,o York Herald
CHARLESTON, Dec. 8--Marriage is not a
failure in South Carolina. Death is the
only statute of limitations that affects this
contract. There is no divorce law here, nor
ever has been in the history of the state,
except during six years of the reconstruc-
ton era, when an effort was made by the
new tangled statesmen of that period to
inset the established institutions which are
at once the strength and glory of the COM
monwealth.
While marriage in this state is in law
only civil contract, it is generally regarded
with all the sanctity of a sacrament, and it
is equally lawful and equally bind
ing. whether the ceremony
be performed by clergyman or magistrate,
or whether the relation be assumed on the
mutual agreement OF the parties interested.
The very indissolubility of the tie has i'm
pressed upon the institution a character
which has not been affected by social or
political mutations. As a rule it is entered
into discreetly, advisedly, soberly and in
the fear of God" 1t is largely on this ac-
count, therefore, that there is less marital
infelcity and that there are more happy
homes in South Carolina than in any other
state of the union.
GUARDED WITH JEALOUS CARE.
bonds with jealous care. The legislature,
of course, has the authority to enact a
divorce law or to provide for divorces in
specific cases, but the legislature is con-
trolled by public sentiment, and public sen
tlment is uDalterably opposed TO any tam
pering with the marriage institution. Sec
non 5. of article IA, of the state constitu-
ton provides as fol ows.
divorces from the bonds Of matri-
mony shall not be allowed but by the judg-
menU Of court as shall he prescribed by
law"
This constitution, which was framed by
tLe reconstruction convention and adopted
in 1868, is still in force. An act was passed
by the legislature in 1872 "to regulate the
granting of divorces" Itprovided that "a
divorce from the bond Of matrimony may
be decreed for two cguSss-adultery and
wilful abandonment or desertion for the
period Of two years" Section Is, of this act
provided that when an inhabitant of this
state ''shan to go another state or country
solly to obtain a divorce for any canse occur
ing here, and while the parties resided here,
or for any cause which would not authorize
a divorce by tue laws of this state divorce
SO obtained shall be of no force or effect in
this state"
The state government was restored in
1876 10 the control of the white people, and
two years later an act was passed by the
in South Carolina and depriving the
courts OF jurisdiction even in cases that
were pending at the time of the passage of
the act.
A DECISIVE CASE.
The decision of the state supreme court
in the case of Grant VS.. Grant settled the
law in regard to divorces. This case was
adjudicaLed in 1879 The ap LEGATION for
divorce was based upon tHe strongest
- .1,s,1 A.. a
court holding that 10 such remedy existed
under the laws Of this state. This settled
the law SO far as the act of 1878 was u
cerDed, and the state went back to its orr
ginal positi n upon the subject Of divorce,
which it has since maintained and viii
maintain until there is al altogether unex-
pected, and, in the present state of
public sentiment, an impossible change of
policy.
In free love communities the
position OF South Carolina upon
the question of divorce doubtless
savors of the spirit of the Puritanism of tho
Connecticut blue laws period, but utter
destestatlon Of all movements looslng to
any change in the policy OF the state upon
this subject has ever prevailed bore and
among nearly all classes of people. The law
books contain a number of cases bearing
upon the question, which show the stern
sense with which the judiciary have ever
regarded the marriage relation. The South
Carolina decisions go even further than the
New Testament upon this line, for it is
maintained here, as I have already shown,
that there cannot be divorce even upon the
scriptural ground. There can be aud have
been what are called separations, but
never always excepting tie six years Of
radical rule) divorce.
EVEN MULTIPLICATION DENIED.
The case of Madison VS.. Mattison, which
is given in Strobhart's South Carolina
equity reports, and was heard before the
court of errors at Columbia, IN 1917, up n
appeal from the lower courts, affords a StrIk-
ing illustration of the sentiment that has
controlled judicial determinations of appli-
cations for divorce.
This was suit of nullity of marriage.
Alley Mattison the complainant alleged
that being addicted to habits of intemper-
ance, he was married to the defendant in
the spring of 1910 while in a fit of deiirium
tremens. In 1916 he fled a bill prayin z
that the marriage be decreed to DO null,
void and of no effect whatever. 1t WAS
contended by the counsel for the complain
ant that the marriage had been entered into
while in state of insanity and that the
court Of Chancery had the right to restrain
the defendant from assuming his name,
passing as his wife and harassing him with
groundless actions and suits for alimony,
maintenance, ETC. The court of chancery
held that it had mo more authority to en-
terrain suit for nullity of marriage than
to grant a divorce or decree a restitution of
conjugal rights" and that $50 important
have the legislature of South Carolina al
ways deemed this authority, and so delicate
the exercise of it, that they have never dele
gated to any judicial tribunal, nor have they
exercised themselves, the right of interior
ence with the matrimonial contract"
In conluding his opinion in this case,
which was concurredin by all the judges of
the court of errors, Chancellor Dunkin
said:
Whether wisely or unNisely, the legisla-
ture have thought proper.to Withhold these
powers. They have delegated to no court
the authority to declare marriage null
and void, and they have never themselves
exercised the authority. Cases OF individual
hardship have occurred and will occur, but
the observation of different policy in other
states. as well as the experience Of our own,
has served only to confirm the conviction
that it is better to tolerate occasional suffer-
ing than to jeopardize the peace of society
and open wide door to fraud, imposition
and other immortality"
Mr.. Mattison paid very dearly for his
folly, but Mr. Mattison served the very
useful purpose Of establishing principle OF
law which has controlled the decisions OF the
courts for forty years, and which developed
the great moral motive underlying the ad-
atpfge xf Ill q h