New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-09-06
SELECTIONS FROM THE MAIL.
UNIFORM DIVORCE LAWS.
THE QUESTION OF HAVING DIVORCE FOR ONE
CAUSE oNLY-ANCIENT AND MODERN
To the Edftor OF The Tribune.

To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: That there Is strange medley OF legal con
dltlOns In the United states concerning marriage and
divorce and that uniformity of the laws regulating
those matters Is desirable, cannot be questioned but
Just how rigid or how lax such regulations should
be seems to be matter OF controversy In most
States the laws encourage marriage and discourage
divorce making tho one easy and the other diff
cult That. within tho bonds Of reason. Is It
should be- But there are advocates OF rigid dvorce
laws who, II they succeeded, would doom TO despair
many who ought to be released absolutely from the
marriage bond.
The too hopeless condition 10 which rigid laws
would condemn the unhappily married cannot as has
been shown by experience and forth high judicial
opinion have wholesome effect tho morals OF
society, can It prevent hasty marriages. Although
marry I'm haste and repent at leisure has become a
byword known to ALL and has all the force given
1t by the difficulty and In some communities BY the
impossbiliy OF dlssolvlng the marriage e yet hasty
marriages well unhappy ones, occur daily.
Public sentiment, a study OF the middle ages Will
disclose, when marriage dissoluble only by
death, and as is shown In those communities where
the rigidity prevails, becomes
so moulded by laws which lndissoubly
bind those who have unhappily married
that If the moral condition only Of society were TO
be considered, tho other would be preferable.
"What God hath joined together let man put
asunder" is regarded by many teaching tho IN
dissoubiliy of marriage under all circumstances.
Well, tho first thing TO be ascertaned is Did God do
tho Joining If So then the union viii be divine,
characterized by the tenderest purest and strongest
affections, in which each would die for tho other.
Let no mana third party-ethcr in his social or
official capacity-dare TO try to put such couple
asunder. But where instead of love there is hatred
toad of honor insult instead of tender care wlful
neglect instead Of respect dsdain; where ibcrtines
tba ~ bttsb a
where the ties that bind but the manacles that
chain otherwise warm and cheerful heart TO a
cold and repellant nature, who would say that God
had joined such together and how can the continuance
Of such bond be for the general welfare of society
The same authority Is quoted permitting divorce
one ground only, and It is asserted that what Christ
said is In all particulars binding to-day. As a law
Soc al and political condition Of those to whom lie
gave His laws. Law is made for man. not man for
1t does not follow that the letter OF Christs teach
Ings should be adhered 20, If their spirit and intent
and should not be administered according to abstract
arbitrary, unvarying rules, regardless OF human CON
IS the law OF divorce 10 discover which is necessary
TO ascertain whether divorce in His time Is the same i
marriage being a civil contract. could be dissolved
without legal process. The law Of Moses, which
PRECIOUS. TO the husband the wife having no redress
nor power lie could cast her of In sickness; in
lmpelied him so to do, lie was the Judge Of such
matters. without accountability TO any human tribunal.
Contrast such state with the present in which
divorce be had only whore there has been no
collision or condCnement. at the decision OF nigh
and disinteresed tribunal, in favor Of an innocent
and suffering party and against the guilty and wicked,
and that the strongest legal proof. What Is there
In common with that and the arbitrary putting
away, which Christ condemned 4 literal inerprc.
tation OF Chrlss words makes one cause the ground
for divorce while nameeSs and unnatural crimes
would constitute no such cause. Is the wife who Is
the object Of morn than inhuman treatment, or the
husband whose existence is more than wretched be-
canso he has married woman that renders life mis-
cradle 10 have no redress other than scparar
ton which renders the condition dOubly insInerabe
by forever barring each from tho privilege of happy
union did opportrnity offer? It Is hard TO believe
that the highest morallss intend that such an inter
probation should be put on their teachings
Ncv-York Aug "a 1850 DOMESTICUS.