Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1889-12-05
Ex-MINiSTER PHELPS ON DI-
vORCE.

the Magazines and Reviews, and the
publishers of some of these are evident
ly playing him as their trump card. He
is certainly an interesting and instruct
i've writer, ,and as long as he continues in
his present style, both as to subjects and
treatment, we apprehend that he is an
infinitely more useful writer than Hen
ry James or II. Rider Haggard. His
latest venture is in the Forum on the
subject of divorce. He has evidently
made this a subject of considerable
thought which he carefully formulates,
and the paper he presents will be val
liable addition to the literature of this
subject. In common with most wri-
ters he deplores the increase in the
number of divorces, showing that this
is out of proportion to the increase of
population. He makes the rather sur
prising statement that divorces are most
numerous in those States that have the
largest number of churches, the most
elaborate educational machinery, and
where the theory of morals is maintain
ed at its highest point. He leaves his
reader in a state of uncertainty as to
whether he would teach that these are
among the potent causes of divorce in
asmuch as he does not explain. We
do not doubt the truth of the statement
but the causes that make for divorce are
stronger than the influence going out
from these institutions of "a high civili-
cation. But he soon passes from the
consideration of the state Of the ques-
ton to discuss the remedy. He antag-
onizes the position of those who are la
boring to secure Congressional action
on the ground that Congress has no
power to legislate in the matter, GER
tainly outside of the District and the
Territories. Those who are laboring
to secure through Congress uniform
marriage and divorce laws are seeking
to centralize power in the general gov
ernment, proceeding against which
our most thoughtful men are inclined
to protest. There are seeming advan-
tages in Congressional action but they
are more than balanced by the possible
dangers arising from the precedents it
would establish. Our marriage and
divorce laws are badly mixed, but so
long as the nation is made up of forty
odd Independent, sovereign states in
each of which the ruling powers have
ideas of their own, we do not see how
the mixture can be avoided. We be-
lieve with Mr.. Phelps that there is no
power over States that can enforce uni
formity in domestic relations without
endangering State independence. The
that Mr.. Phelps proposes is to
forbid marriage TO both parties in di-
vorce suit. Recent legislation in some
of the States has been aiming in this
direction. In Vermont the guilty par
ty must wait three years before marry
ing. But this has proved feeble bar
rier inasmuch as divorced parties can
step over the line into adjacent States,
marry and return at once. Under the
legislation there would be the
same difficulty. Divorced parties might
be prevented from marrying under our
laws, but few hours ride and few
dollars expense win bring parties into
a region where they can defy our laws.
About all that Mr.. Phelps can hope to
gain by his remedy is, by increasing
difficulties in the way of re-marrying,
parties may think longer before taking
to separate. He admits that
such law would impose a hardship
tDOu lAN AuhtNcAA ftAt a. a hAfOitC I
suit, but he says, ''laws should be
ramed to secure the greatest good of
he greatest number. The true and
iound policy in legislation is that which
5 derived from a just survey of the
whole field affected, and not from a view
# small part of it. However true
his may be as a general principle to be
Observed in legislation, we do not be-
ieve in directly furnishing the innocent
Or the sake of Furnishing the guilty.
We do not believe the proposed method
fould check divorce so long as parties
an 90 without the State and marry.
We believe there is an injustice involv-
in this kind of legislation whether it
an be made effective or not. 1t is ,
ne the restriction is to continue only .
ntil the death of one Of the parties, but .
lis is only an immaterial modification of |
le severity of the restriction imposed. ;
- Il Il. Ti,-,1..-,