St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-11-16
A REFORM SUGGESTED.
One Side of the Divorce Law Not
Often Looked At.

In connection with much that the
GLOBE has offered on the present sys-
TEN of divorce laws a correspondent
presents the following:
There has been considerable discus
sion in the GLOBE by writer's in differ
ent parts of the state, over our divorce
laws, and especially that clause which
makes three years wilful deSertiOn
cause for divorce. 1t has been claimed
that if the term be made shorter it will
have demoralZing effect upon many
happy homes: that many families would
bn INN diateiv broken up by one or
the other of the parties asking for di-
vorce; and that it would bring thou
sands into the state for the sole purpose
of taking advantage Of free and easy
way of obtaining separation from
marriage vows: to our great disgrace as
Christian people. All this is on the
moral side of the question. and has moth
ing to do with the justice OF practical
part in view, and is only Of minor i'm
pOrtanna
=. Pity sometimes plays an active part in
our domestic relations, and sometimes
cries aloud for better measured justice.
and in this relation it might be asked.
What about the wife who has. without
fault on her part. been willfuily de-
serted by her husband, leaving in her
in destitute circumstances with. per
liars. large family of children
to support and with no other means of
doing it. than bv her daily labor
in all sorts of drudgery. more than her
strength can hear. and at best often
falling in gathering enough to keep her
self and little ones from starvation and
perishing in the storms of winter?
When sickness -prOstratps her what is
she to do but to suffer the public dis
grace of becoming a public charge?
What then becomes of the moral side of
the question. and what does the world
care for. her and her pauper children?
Upon what principle is she to remain
for three long weary years tied to
husband even in name, who has openly
repudated his marriage vows. and
scorns her whom he Solemnly promised
to provide for? Why is she still to re-
main true and bound to him in law after
he has refused to acknowledge her or
to keep OF observe his side of their con-
tract? In what other instances does
the law require one to be bound by a
contract for three We rs after the other
has wilfully abandoned. refused to
keep, Or in any manner observe its con-
law is such provision to be found; but
on the contrary. Immediately after one
party has wiiIfullv broken his agree
ment and has refused for a reasonable
length of time to perform. when he
might do So the other party can have
redress and relief from it by application
to the courts.
If the legislature would put this hui
name provision in the divorce law, in
cases of willful deserti0n on the part of
the husband, poor suffering wife
would then have some rights a husband
would be bound to respect: but as it
now is. this long delay of three years
becomes so much agony and punish
ment to an innocent party. and all be-
cause of the disgracefnl. willful wrongs
of her defaulting husband. A husband
who has become so embittered as to de-
sert his wife and children. needs no
three years for reflection. nor in which
to return. but every day of absence adds
new fuel to his malicious stubbOrnness,
and the greater the distance he is from
his suffering victims, the more it lends
enchantment to his willful determine
ton to remain a cruel deSerter. Then
ava with the three years clause. and
let the facts in each case he left to the
sound discretion of the courts. and when
they find that wllful deSertion has
been properly shown. then let the courts
Caen the unjust prison doors and give
the deserving wife her freedom, that
she may begin life anew.
d. S. GRIFFIN.
Detroit, Mimi. Nov. II.