The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-11-29

what would there be to hinder the erasure
of state lines, and the exercise of all the
functions of government, local and gen
eral, by the control power having its head
quarters in the District of Columbia? Mr..
PHELPS therefore directs his attention
to state laws which he discusses as
to their provisions, methods and APP
plications. The remedy which he pro-
poses is this, that the states enact laws
prohibiting marriage by either divorced
party so long as the other lives. Heclaims
that it is the liberty to marry again which
incites to divorce, that being the main
cause leading to so many separations be-
tween husbands and wives. This IS I'M
doubtedly true in many instances; it may
be true in a majority of cases. The hus-
| band is infatuated with another woman,
and seeks occasion for divorce from his
wife, taking advantage of the loose laws
on the subject; the wife discovers that she
loves another man better than she does her
husband, and thereupon sets out to obtain
legal separation. Still, there are many
divorces the parties to which do not con-
template a second marriage at the time.
They separate because they are unhappy
together, and for no other reason. But in
what respect would Mir. PHELPS proposed
laws be an Improvement on the present
statutesl 1t seems 10 US that to concede
that this scheme would lessen the evil
would be to say that marriage is an evil.
Nobody will be willing to admit this. The
efforts of governments, of Christianity and
Of civilization are toward the encourage
ment of marriage, it being held by all that
marriage is the proper, the better and the
more moral state. 1t will not be denied
that the greater the percentage of married
people in community the higher is the
state Of public morals, and the better gen
orally are the men and women. Then, why
do something to prevent marriage! A
man and woman may not be able, by
reason of faulty or inharmonious dis
positions, or for some other cause,
to live together as husband and
wife, and yet both may be happy and con-
tent with other partners. The truth of this
is often demonstrated. But PHELPS would
prohibit the second marriage, and thus de
prive the man or woman of chance to be
happy, and cheat the state of the example,
the security and strength which marriage
is presumed to give.
Nor is it believed that the plan proposed
would materially lessen the number of sep
aratious, though it might decrease the di
vorces, and in the opinion of many social
scientists separation without divorce has
direct tendency TO individual immortality.
Forbidding men and women to marry
might, and probably would, incline them to
immoralitles of which they would not be
guilty Of if they were permitted TO marry.
1t has always seemed to US that there
is greater safety for society and
far more morality in laws which
put the fewest obstacles in the way of
legal divorce. There are two things which
the law should guard against, and with
these points well protected, the divorce
laws are not likely to be too liberal. The
statutes should first make it impossible to
procure divorce by fraud or deception, by
compelling all proceedings to be conducted
in open court, where both parties shall
have an opportunity to be fully heard, and
should then compel an equitable division
of property, and that provision be made for
the children. This being done, it will be
immoral to force men and women who are
offensive to each other to live together,
and it seems to US, equally immoral to deny
to either Of them the privilege of seeking
companion with whom he or she can live
in harmony.