Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-02-23
The Troubles Arising From the Want
of Uniform and Consistent
LAWS ON MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
Discussed From Humanitarian and Legal
StandpOintS.
SOUTH CAROLINrS PROUDBST BOAST
WRITTEN FOR THE D1srATcH.l


Union which regulate marriage and divorce.
The law of God, as recorded in the gospels
of the evangelists, is in direct opposition to
the law Of the land.
/ witnessed very apparent illustration
of this fact few years ago in Chicago. 1t
was bill of divorce that came up for hear
ing before one of the circuit judges. I
think it was before Judge Barnum. The
defendant pleaded in his answer that the
marriage had not been celebrated at the al
legged time and place set forth in the bill;
and the certificate OF the celebrant was ad-
mitted in evidence. 1t was the stereotvped
form of the Episcopal Church. On the top,
before YOU come to the words, ''This is to
certifv,' % were engraved two hands, clasped
together, one large and robust the other
small and delicate; directly over them, and
forming a semi-circle, were the words of st.
Matthew, XIX, 6: "Quod ergo Deus con-
iunxit homo non separet." What God
hath Joined together let no man put
asunder. Notwithstanding this behest the
decree was granted, and they were no longer
"two in one flesh"
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE.
With this, however, 1 find no fault, on
the principle that "all law is good" while
ii is law, and the liberty of our people de-
pends on its promulgation TO the letter.
Neither am L laying down any plan of con-
science making; that is not my forte; beside
the holiness of the matrimonial state and
its ecclesiastical dissolution belongs to the
canon law and not to the common or stat
utory law. 1t would i'll become me TO ap-
peal to sacred truths to sustain a mode of
Il
of practice and expedience. Necessity has
no law, and expeiience is often one form of
necessity
1t is no principle with sensible men, of
whatever cast of opinion, to do always what
is abstractedly best. Where no direct duty
forbidS we NAV be obliged to do, as being
best under circumstances, what we murmer
and rise against while we do it. We see to
attempt more is to effect less: that we must ac-
cept so much or gain nothing; and so perforce
We reconcile ourselves to what we would
have far otherwise if We could. So it is
with divorce, and the laws that regulate it
can be fully appreciated by those who can
or would gladly get along without it.
A CIVIL CONTRACT.
If marriage be ''the most beneficial insti-
tuition of society,"" as the learned iurist Mr..
Kent defines it @ Kent Com, 75 76), and if
il be true that "our law considers marriage
in no other light than as a civil contract
Il Blackstone Com, 439), think that on
these grounds the statutes which govern it
and provide for its dissolution, should be
enacted by the highest Legislative body we
know o., the Congress of the United States.
There are other reasons, too, which seem to
favor Federal legislation and establish uni
form laws for marriage and divorce
Mr.. Springer, of Illinois, has submitted a
proposition, a joint resolution as it were, to
Congress, that the Sixteenth Amendment of
our Constitution shall declare: Congress
shall have the power to make a uniform law
of marriage and divorce To the thinking
men and women of our country this resolu-
ton of the Congressman must and will meet
with favor. The laws of marriage and di-
vorce as they now exist in many of the
States is not preventative against polyga-
nv and its baneful effect, but mere charter
to make it legal and protection from ar
rest and punishment in its uxorious opera
tions. 1t might be well to mention right
here, that in those days of intellectual re-
fnement, many a beautiful young woman
learns, or her offspring after she is dead
learns, that on account of the looSeness of
the laws. the form of marriage has been
mere farce.
OBJECTIONS RAISED.
Some objections have arisen to Mr..
Springer's proposed amendment, and 1 be-
lieve from the Democrats, that it would be
an open insult to put into our sacred Con-
stltutlon an express prohibition of prac-
tice so barbaric and ancient; and also that
1t would be an encroachment upon rights
of the States. 1t seems to me these obiec-
tions are very slim to the benefits that would
arise from Federal legislation. 1 have suf-
fcient confidence in the ability of Congress
to regulate this question TO such an extent
that it will, TO say the least, make them uni
form; that marriage will be something more
than 4 mere experiment; that some of the
absurdities of the present system will be
wiped away; that fraudulent divorces and
collusions of the parties will be a thing of
the past; that trivial grounds for divorce
will no longer pave the way to the deprav-
ity of families and undermine the social
column of our existence.
l have said mere experiment, simply be-
cause a great many enter into the state of
matrimony for a season, and then, taking
advantage of the State law for putting the
wife and husband aside and marrying
another.
SIGNIFICANT FIGURES.
A painstaking writer, and friend of nv
own, took the trouble TO form a table of sta
tistics on the subject, and developed this
terrible state of affairs, showing that while
some of the States granted one divorce to
ten marriages, yet quite q fair proportion of
them granted one divorce 20 every six SOL
emnizations of the marriage contract.
Coupled with this startling intelligence. is
the fact that one-third of the bills filed for
absolute divorce are either withdrawn or
dismissed for the want OF equity, and their
hap for
that time itself, with all its force and eff
cacy, can never replace the peace and calm
fractured by this public notice of their
quarrels and domestic troubles. On the
principle of the old adage "take away the
opportunity and you take away the SIM"
remove those bad laws from the statute
books and you will surely remove those
piques and difficulties as surely as night fol-
lows day, and day again brings on night
In Canada where there is no divorce
court is fair manifestation of this truth.
Every bill of divorce is there granted by an
act of Parliament for the relief of the in
jured party and 1 think that 1 am safe in
saying there is no country under the sun
treer from domestic strife and unhappy mar
riages.
DIVORCE IN CANADA.
The session of 81, Victoria, ending in the
spring of 1888, granted three absolute di-
vorces; one for the relief of Andrew Max
well Irvine, on account of the infidelity of
his wife; the second was for the relief of
Catherine Morrison, Oh account of the
cruelty and drunkenness o. her husband;
the third for the relief of Eleonora Elizabeth
Tudor, in consequence of the continuous un-
chastity of her liege lord; and what is signif-
cant, too, in both cases of infidelity the mar
riage was solemnized in the United States,