Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-10-19

the contrary, refusal to men and women Of
rights in this matter which God by His law
gives TO them is itself immoral, and therefore
Of necessarily bad tendency.
God and nature" he continued, shave
made the relation of marriage the universal
right of mature men and women. Manifestly
this includes the right of each party to the
union TO all its essential benefits. On these
grounds also society, in corporate capacity
has a right TO the advantages which NAV flow
to II. through the marriage of its capable
members But in multitudes of instances, by
wrong, husband or wife has cut off an inno-
cent partner from all real benefit Of the union,
while In form II yet subsisted. Hence if we
deny any divorce. the naked bond of marriage
empowers a bad mate who disowns it to de-
prive an innocent and grieyously suffering one
of the benefits the relation is designed to give
Society, too. In that event, is defrauded by the
wicked action. Thus to the good. SO held mar
rlage Is made sword instead of a shield.
With divorce restricted to adultery alone the
same consequence follows from desertion. Our
proposition. therefore. is that right to divorce
Is complemental TO, and demanded by the right
TO marriage, not only in case of adultery, but
also of desertion.''
The speaker after considering what st. Paul
teaches III Cor, wiz Is, and the conclusions
drawn therefrom by various eminent theolo-
gsts, said: The result, of course is that Christ
gives one ground of divorce and ST. Paul an
other. wholly different. Consequently, neither
nor both stated the law of divorce though each
gave case within and which illustrates that
law. Hence 1t follows that the law itself is not
n matter of scripIural statement, and SO must
be deduced from the right to and nature of the
marriage union, and the two causes given justi-
flying Its severance. In substance we think il
Is this: Adultery, desertion and other acts
which, like the first. destroy the sc xual purity
of the relation. or like the second, operate To
deny to an innocent party and to society the
substantial benefits. and so what is essential in
the right to the relation, If its bond be held in
dissoluble. are valid causes for annullng it.
The result OF our discussion" said Judge
Sibley in conclusion, clearly is that the state
ever inforcing the monogamic form Of mar.
riage, should on ethical grounds, require con
tinuance OF the relation, when entered into
until death ends II. except IN cases where on
principle stated the right to marriage demands
its severance; and when they occur it should
grant TO the innocent party a civil liberty com
mensurate with the moral by annulling the
bond The guilty one may be left bound al
having forfeited by wrong the right to renew
| the union. Thus in these important particu
| lars would the civil law accord with what sound
morals require and become promotive Of socia
| welfare. We observe in conclusion that statei
which deny part of the moral law Of mar
rage by refusing any divorce, must, as they
| ever have done. pay the penalty by seein6
their marital life peculiarly darkened by tht
balefui excresences of lover and mistress.
Those that refuse it in case Of dssertion in I
measure will share the same fate. God is no
Knocked Morai;ty can be advanced neither
by denial Of what itself allows nor by icens,
Of what it forbids!'
| OTHER ADpRKssEA
At the conclusion Of this paper II WAS almos
] The time set for tho adjournment but bris