Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-12-28
THE DIVORCE QUESTION.

THE DIVORCE QUESTION
The divorce question grows in interest
as the debate progresses. We now have
the opinions of Gladstone, Justice Bradley
OF the Supreme Court of the United States,
and of Senator Dolph. Mr.. Gladstone
comedies that there must be laws recog-
MIXING divorce, but he would not consent
to the remarriage of the parties under any
conditions whatever. The standard of con-
jugal morality has declined according to
his forty years of observation, mainly be-
cause of the laxity of the divorce laws.
Mr.. Justice Bradley refuses assent to the
doctrine that there should never be any
severance of the marriage bond. Mere
separation he considered unjust to the in
nocent and the injured party. He well
says that the moral law does not demand
that one shall be forever tied to a party
who disregards all the obligations of the
matrimonial union, nor does it exact cele-
bacy from the injured party who has been
set free and declared by competent author
ity guiltless If the law affords no relief
to those who are the victims of the cruelty
or the unfaithfulness of mates, the law viii
be set at defiance and greater injury to
body and soul viii result from elandestine
methods of relief
Senator Dolph emphatically declares
that divorced people should be permitted
to re-marly where there is not incompe-
tency to enter into the marriage relation.
If punishment of the guilty party is neces-
sary, some means should be employed
other than enforced celibacy. Whether
divorce promotes or Injuries the moral
soundness of the family is a question to be
decided only according to the cireum-
stances of each one. If one or both the
parents are unfit to control the children or
to associate with them, then divorce is for
their moral good. The marital union
should continue for life, but if by the act
of one party the chief end of marriage is
frustrated the happiness Of the parties is
wrecked and the home influence corrupted,
it is wiser to dissolve than to hold the
contract indissoluble.
If the question, "Does prohibition of
divorce contribute to the moral purity Of
society p is to be answered by COM
parison of social conditions of society in
countries where divorce is permitted
with the conditions where it is pro-
hibited, the response must be in
the negative, according to the Senators
view. In proof of the soundness of this
Judgment he asks with confidence if family
morals in the United States, England and
Germany do not compare favorably with
those in France, Spain and Italy? Even
in South Carolina, where divorce was pro-
hibited before the rebellion, the moral con-
ditions were not superior to those Of other
States, and a Judicial decision is cited in
which the Court declared that, under the
rigid law prohibiting divorce for any
cause, men and women of excellent char
acter, ''but unfortunate in marriage, form
connections the laws does not allow, and
who make excellent husbands and yirtu-
Gus wives still. Yet they are considered as
living in adultery because vigorous and
unyielding law, from motives of policy
alone, has ordained it So
As to reform measures the Senator ad-
vises that the effort be made to correct the
laxity and want of uniformity in the laws
of the States concerning divorce. Agita-
ton should be continued and a healthy
public sentiment be built up. But he
thinks the speediest and best remedy is
Federal legislation. To that end the Con-
stitution should be amended committing
such legislation to Congress. There is
great force in this expression of the essay
list:
Which shall legislate upon the subject, the
States or the Federal Government, is mere
question of public convenience and welfare. A
diversity of laws on these subjects between IN
danendent nations gives rise TO comparatively
little confusion; but the relations between the
States of the Union are entirely different from
those between suC4 HhtlDLs- u Cit-EcA VI tliS Z
I-nite0 states may be a resident to-day of one
State and tomorrow Of another; but his change
of residence should be without change OF i'm
nairment of his rights OF citizenship or his per
sonal or property rights
We confess that the more the subject is
considered the stronger becomes the rea-
soning of those who favor Federal legisla-
ton to secure uniformity OF the laws con
eerning marriage and divorce. We have
thought that such amendment as Is neces-
sary could not be secured. but there are
evidences of change of |
sentiment upon the question in most OF +
the States. We may well ask if the
sovereignties would be yielding a right
that is necessary to the preservation of
their independence and individuality by
,oL;pg the constitutional cession. The