The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1891-06-02

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.

1t is no exaggeration of language to
say that the pillars which support the
American republic rest upon the fam
lily hearthstone. The men who went
forth to fight it's battles in the hour of
its need were animated by their love
for the domestic surroundings which
had been, OF were expected to be, a
part of their life. The men who have
pushed through the hard road to the
front in the executive, legislative Or
judicial functions, or in the enterprises
which have developed our great re-
sources, did not labor for the cold re-
wards of success. Such success must
have something behind it to make it
valuable. The i~ndulgences for the
senses which money will command
will not send the better class of men
into that struggle. HonOrs and applause
will be empty and barren unless some
social force gives them a sentimental
as well as a purely material value.
That force is found in the home, of
which the marriage rite is the key
0OOAAO d44O III 1AACs l. PO4AOJ VI AAO
family hearthstone is, therefore, like
the integrity of the public school sys-
tenn, an essential part of our funda-
mental institutions. Two cancerwOrms
are eating into this hearthstone. The
one is the uncertainty as to what con
stitutes a legal marriage, and the other
is the grossly immoral ~looseness of the
laws governing divorces. The Califor-
MIA law defining what constitutes a
marriage is so exceedingly wild that it
is difficult to find two lawyers whocan
agree as to some of its essentials. The
d~ivorcelaws of some of the other States
are, perhaps, a little more ~grotesquely
destructive of good morals, but that is
not saying a great deal for ours. What
is wanted throughout the whole Union
of the American States is uniformity,
as well as a proper degree of strictness,
in the legal principles which govern
both marriage and divorce.-Snn
Francisco Examiner.
AS to a marriage law there would be
no difficulty. There is no excus now
in any part of the United States, ex-
cept, perhaps, in the wiIds of Alaska,
for a neglect to solemnize a marriage
before a properly constituted official;
o does any whose opinion is worth
considering justify consent mar
riages." The time has passed for argu-
ment on the question whether a mar
riage is or not a civil contract, and
whether a marriage before a civil
magistrate should or should not have
the same legal effect as a marriage by
a clergyman. These questions r set
tied. Indeed, we know of no problems
which would be likely to arise if Con-
gress assumed the right to pass amar-
riage 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 mems 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 to-
gether if the marriage bond were indis-
soluble, and there are other States in
which the idea of breaking a 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 voided by the act of man. To recon
Gle these conflicting opinions is a task
which might well stagger the most
resolute reformer. Indeed, it is hardly
possible to conceive a compromise
which would satisfy both the partisans
of divorce in California or in Rhode
Island and likewise the opponents of
divorcein South Carolina and Virginia.
The whole subject of divorce was
thoroughly 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 L 1890 was the enactment
of a law of divorce. The law was
abused, and was Don after repealed.
In 1903 it was re-enacted, at the in
stance of the Emperor Napoleon.
When the restoration took place, and
Louis XVIII, undertook to replace
everything as it had been under the
monarchy, it was again repealed, and
from 1916 to 1884 the only remedy for