New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-09-22
DIVORCE.
TREATISE on DIVORCE. BY Charles lS,s Cave 1I
iamo' DIP. o43. Madison. Wis; Midland Fuo

TREATISE on DIVORCE. BY. charle,s, aries, Cave 11
i2mo PIP. 243. Madison, WIS., MiuiaAu r"o
fishing Co.
This is n book on divorce by man VINO mas
honestly and thoroughly studied the question VINO
can reason in q straight line. and VINO mas iearneu
70 copdense his ideas and to marshal them 50 lhaC
they count for all they are worth great many
works on divorce have been Written Vi i"o'
but not many which exhibit any speciai Nlo"r
odco or study. and not any which indicates
clear and firmly held conviction as 10 tne oest
means Of rectifying existent abuses. Mr.. Caverno
i not of those incongruent confused and scatter
inc oontroversaIists He has surveyed the whole
cold tbouobt ont the subject in detail and applied
a nractical capacity to the formulation oil RENE
dies Many will no doubt, disagree with his con-
illusions but no one can make a mistake as 10
their meaning or as TO the meaning OF MS argu
ments Not few perhaps, alter reaulhg MS
hcid and forcible exposition OF the sItuauoli' WIZ
begin to suspect that radical as his MAN posluoh
NAV at first appear it possibly affords the only
solution of the problem likely to succeed II tired
fairly.
Reinq a clergyman, it is natural that MI.
Caverno should lay much stress upon the cahohi-
cal authorities in the premises. lie peSins anu
ends by examining the positions OF jesus ana Oh
Paul upon divorce, and makes strong arsuinehV
for the unity of the New Testament teachihs vi
this head. His chapter on the attempt 10 eS'ao-
lish absolute equality between husband ana wife,
ond rorticularlv his remarks upon the value of
tho arguments brought by certain Woman's
Riobts- advocates against Paul, will be found
interesting and not wanting in certain In
troniditv Mr.. Caverno takes his stand upon the
facts Of pbvsiooav as excluding of necessity every
claim for the equality of the sexes. lie Woulc
bove divorce restricted to q single cause, namely,
adultery For all other marital dlsagrcemehls
now listed in many of the States as cause Tor
divorce he would have the judicial separation OF
the English law. lie goes with the CathoHc
Church so far as the principle OF ITS system is
concerned but differs from II IN regard TO inc
refusal of divorce for any cause 10 reiuSe Ill
vorce for adultery, he contends, IS to establish
polvgamy or plural cOncubinage. As, however,
there seems no probability that either State or
Federal legislation will ever take the position OF
the Catholic Church on this question, 1t Is not nee
essary 10 consider it very seriously. what MI
Caverno has to say respecting other causes oil
divorce is much more TO the purpose. In several
instances his remarks pierce through the Shell OF
conyentionalty and disclose anomalous, lnequl-
table and even monstrous abuses in the malnte-
nance of which society nevertheless pacidly ac-
ouiesces One of the most fragrant Of these is
the treatment of the marital rights of criminals.
In many, II not all, States conviction OF felony
is cause for divorce. Upon this provision of the
law Mr.. Caverno comments follows: That
divorce should be allowed for the mere conviction
of a felony is a piece Of ineXcusable cruelty and
brutality That is an excellent way in which
society may pull down with one hand what it is
Il II hpl W
are seeking 10 execute the problem of making
confinement in prison rcfOrmatory in its nature a
well as punitive 1t is remarkable way to lay
foundation for the permanent reformation of
criminal to take his wife and children away from
him. While a man is working out his sentence
in State prison, it must have a soothing effect
upon his feclings-must have powerful influence
toward reconciling him to the laws of society
for him to know that society outside is plumber
ing him of his family. 1t must have a tremendous
influence toward arousing virtuous resolutions
in him to know that society is authorizing the
CONSIGNMENT of his own wife TO the bosom OF
another man. while he is working out sentence
which was supposed to be adequate punishment
for his crime Perhaps he committed perjury or
forgery for the very purpose of keeping his family
from dnstitution." This is strong, but Is II not
a fair statement of the facts? 1t is undenable
that the divorce for felony provision moreover
constitutes a most inequtable distinction between
the married and the single criminal, imposing
upon the former penalty over and above his
ostensible sentence, which, in the case OF man
of any family affections, must double or tfeoie
the suffering In fact, the law punisheS the mar
red criminal by breaking up his home ana taking
away his children as well as his wife; and this, as
Mr.. Caverno declares. is "A piece of ineXcuSable
crualtv and brutality" The law made
nonnally in the interest Of the fclon's WIFE and II
may be said that she is not bound TO take al
vantage of it, and that If she really loves her
husband she will refuse TO do So Nevertheless
the provision adds infamy to felony; increases
punishment in "a way never contemplated anu III
fact prohibited by the organic law; encourages
proaigacy, and tends to make the convict an I'M
placable enemy of the society that has so per-
secuted and ruined him.
The tenor of all Mr. Caverno's arguments is
wholesome and bracing, and he never fails TO put
his finger upon the vices and weaknesses when
! underlie the modern tendencies TO laAiy i'll 'he
marriage relation. His remarks upon the true
significance of the multiplication OF statutory
causes for divorce are shTewd and penetrating and
marked by an uncompromisng adherence to truth
which is not so common a. to escape observation
/ vh,n met with. Undoubtedly the alleged pro-
lection extended by recent divorce laws to women
are direct incentives to the cultivation of selfish
ness, fckleness. inidelity, frivolity and immoral
/ ity. They operate in the direction of legtmaiins
concubinae, in short, and no society which toll
crates such relations under whatever DISCUSSES
can he in the path Of true progress. Nothing can
be sounder than Mr.. Caverno's position that what
is needed is TO make married people contented with
their lot and that the way to do this Is not To
facilitate their escape from 1t, but to impress
upon them before entering upon 1t the necessity
for mutual self-surpndor and sacr1i@ and SO pre-
pare the contracting parties for union which
. oupbt 10 be indissoluble save for the one crime
which wrecks the family. After anaiyzing The
utipo,s divorce statute he says: When people