Tombstone epitaph., 1890-02-15
THE MARITAL RELATION.
Associate Justice Bradley's Ideas Con-
 corning the Divorce Question.

A66OctaGe JugtiCe brAQleyb 1Oea9 OOn-
 corning the Divorce Question.
 As marriage and the family institu- tion constitute the foundation and chief cornerstone of civil society, it is of the greatest moment that the marriage tie should never be dissolved save for the most urgent reason. I can not assent, however, to the doctrine that it should never be dissolved at all. Mere separa- tion, though legalized, would often be an inadequate and unjust remedy to the injured party, who would thus be subjected to an enforced celibacy. This might suit the notions of those who re- gard celibacy as virtue, but would fail to approve itself to those who take wider and more charitable view of human nature. The Divine law which says: ''What God hath joined together let not man put asunder," immediately adds an exception showing the law of nature dictates the case is not governed by any iron rule of uni versal application. The law ''Thou shalt not kill" has its necessary excep- tions, disregard of which would render it mischievous in 8 high degree. I know no other law on the subject but the moral law, which does not consist in arbitrary enactments and decrees, but is adapted to our condition as human beings. This is so, whether it is con ceived of as the will of an All-Wise Creator, or as the voice of humanity. speaking from it's experience, it's neces- sities and it's higher instincts. And that law surely does not demand that the injured party to the marriage bond should be forever tied to one who dis regards and violates every obligation which it imposes; to one with whom it is impossible to cohabit; to one whose touch is contamination. Nor does it demand that such injured party, if le- gally free, should be forever debarred from forming other ties through which the lost hopes of happiness for life may be restored. It is not reason, and it can not be law, Divine or moral, that un- faithfulness or willful and obstinate desertion, or persistent cruelty of the stronger party, should afford no ground for relief. The most rigid creeds to the contrary have found methods of dispensation from the theoretical rule. And if no redress be legalized, the law itself will be set at defiance, and great CT injury to soul and body will result from clandestine methods of relief. Yet so desirable is the indissolubility of marriage as an institution, so necessary is it to the happiness of families and the good of society, so pitiable the con sequences that often flow from disso- lution, that every Encouragement to such remedy should be interposed. Not only should the judge take every care to see that just cause exists, but that no other remedy is possible. No jugglery or privacy should be tolerated, however high in station the parties may be. Investigation of the truth should be thorough and open, and should be 8 matter of public concern, participated in by the public representative of the law. It should be regarded as gttasj- criminal process, if not accompanied With criminal sanctions. Only serious and even severe methods of administer ing the law will be sufficient to repress the growing tendency of discontented parties to rush into the divorce courts. Associate Justice Bradley, in North American Review.