The morning call., 1891-01-18
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.

Within a day or two a report from the
New Y ork Commissioners appointed to de-
wise a plan for uniform marriage and di-
vorce law in the United States will be laid
before the Legislature of their State. Gov
ern0r Hill seems TO expect that it will con-
tain valuable suggestions; others are less
hopeful.
As to marriage law there would be no
difficulty. There is no excuse now in any
part of the United States, except, perhaps,
in the wilds of Alaska. for neglect to sol
emniZe a marriage before a properly cOnsti-
tuted official; nor does any one whose
opinion is worth considering Justify " con-
sent marriages" The time has passed for
argument on the question whether a mar
riage is or is not civil contract, and
whether marriage before a civil magis-
trate should or should not have the same
legal effect as a marriage by clergyman.
These questions ale settled. Indeed, we
know of no problems which would be likely
TO arise if Congress- assumed the right 10
pass a marriage law on the basis of the law
Of California, or of New York, or of Penn
sylvania, to govern the whole country.
But it is wholly different with a divorce
law. On this matter mem opinions differ
according to the meridian in which they live
and according to the church of which they
are members. There are States in which
people do not believe that society could hold
together if the marriage bond were indissol-
uble, and there are other States in which the
idea of breaking marriage is abhorrent to
men and women alike There are churches
which hold that divorced persons may be in
perfectly good standing, and there are
others which hold that marriage is a sacra-
ment, not under any circumstance to be
yoided by the act of man. To reconcile
these conflicting opinions is task which
might well stagger the most resolute re-
former. Indeed, it is hardly possible to
conceive Il compromise which would satisfy
both the partisans of divorce in California
or in Rhode Island and likewise the oppo-
nents of divorce in South Carolina and Viz
ginia.
The whole subject OF divorce was thor
oughly ventilated, both in its moral and in
its social aspects, when the Naquet divorce
law was adopted in France some six years
ago. One Of the first consequences of the
uprising against existing institutions which
took place in 1890 was the enactment of
law Of divorce. The law was abused and
was soon after repealed. In 1903 il was re-
enacted, at the instance of the Emperor
INs
and Louis XVIII undertook to replace
everything as it had been under the mon
aTchy, it was again repealed, and from
1916 to 1884 the only remedy for
French couples that could not agree was
10 obtain a separation de corps ct de benS.
This severed the matrimonial tie but it did
not enable the divorced parties to remarry.
In 1851 NJ. Naquet introduced his famous
bill authorizing the courts to grant DEGREES
of divorce on four specified grounds. The
Pope lodged dill lomatic protest against the
bill and it was defeated. Three years after
ward it became a law, tie church content
ing itself with forbidding the French clergy
from celebrating marriages between d.
yorced persons. The law seems TO have
worked well. Under the old system of
separations some 5000 decress were issued
annuallyin France severing the matrimonial
bond and 10000 persons of both sexes were
doomed to celbacy. This was said to en-
courage immortality. Under the present
law, which has been framed with care, the
number of marriages dissolved is less. A
French decree of divorce does not take effect
till nine months after it has been rendered
The parties have thus ample time for reflec-
lion ii they have acted in the heat of pas
sion. If they persist they may Temarry. but
the marriage cannot be solemniZed by
priest. They may even remarry each other,
marries his divorced wife and again divorces
her cannot marry her again. He must look
elsewhere for new wife.