The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-04-02
UNBORN DIVORCE AND MARRIAGE
LEGISLATION.

UNBORN DIVORCE AND MARRIAGE
LEGISLATION.
In Q recent letter to the PosT-INTELLr-
eEEcER Samuel w. Dixie. secretary of the
National Divorce Reform League, refers to
the fact that the proposed amendment of
the federal constitution has been post
poned for the line of experiment IN
augurated by the state of New York, which
proposes to procure uniformity by concur
rent legislation on the part of the various
states. This postponement was necessary
because divorce amendment to the
federal constitution, like prohibition
amendment, would never be enacted by
congress, and would, even if enacted,
stand no chance Of ratification by the
states.
If the law OF divorce is to be the same
for the whole union there il no other way
of attaining the end than by inducing the
states to come into agreement on the
question. In New York. however, there
is only one ground for full divorce,
adultery, and it is not possible to secure
the desired harmony of legislation except
by compromise which will sacrifice the
strictness of the present New York law.
The great majority of the states, as their
statutes show, are in favor of making the
dissolution of marriages much less diff
cult than in New York. The only excep-
ton is South Carolina, which has no
divorce law, and concubinage prevails
there to an extent utterly unknown under
the liberal divorce laws of our state,
chiefly because wife outraged has no
relief in shape of a legal divorce. The
South Carolina law gives the friendless,
homeless wife no relief beyond limiting
the amount of money her unfaithful hus-
band can will his mistress.
If New York stands at one extreme and
Washington at the other, the concurrent
legislation desired by Mr.. Dixie must in
evitably be compromise, for the prevail
lug sentiment of the country is with
Washington rather than with New York.
The demand for freer divorce than New
York permits comes from the women, who
suffer more from ill-assorted marriages
than men, and it is in answer to the plea
of justice to women that chronic alcohol
ism, desertion, cruelty and like causes
have been added. "Intolerable severity"
is ground for divorce in some of the
New England states, and the late Chief
Justice Pierpoint, of Vermont, ruled that
''intolerable severity" did not simply
mean physical violence, but that the per-
sistent application of insulting and de-
grading epithets to the wife, causing her
mental and moral humiliation, pain and
shame, in his judgment was the worst
kind of ''intolerable severity"
The church has protested in vain
against liberal divorce laws, and the sem
timent of virtuous society outside of
Roman Catholic circles is no longer
prejudiced against but tolerant of
divorce for humane causes outside
of adultery. Even ministers of
churches that denounce divorces for
other reasons than adultery are ready to
marry people divorced for any legal cause
in any state of the Union. Proposed
uniformity of divorce laws by concurrent
legislation is. however. improbable, because
ment is solid against it, and is strongly
supported by the Episcopalian and Pres
byterian Protestants. Cardinal Gibbons,
of the Roman Catholic church. holds
that the Scriptures forbid divorce:
thst marriage according to the New
Testament is indssoluble. Bishop Potter,
of the Episcopal church, holds that the
Scriptural law permits marriage to the in
nocent party to a divorce for adultery.
The Roman Catholics do not allow d.
vorce at all, view that South Carolina
has enacted with evil practical results.
The Protestant church sometimes quotes
St. Paul as authority for divorce for de-
sertion with re-u.arriage. The Episcopal
church as q rule holds that no divorce
should be granted save for adultery.
There is small prospect for a uniform
marriage and divorce law. Congress has
no constitutional jurisdiction over matters
of this sort, and the reputation of con-
stitutional amendment by twelve states
would kill it. State legislatures have
already by a large majority declared their
dissent from the clerical view of divorce,
limited to adultery as the only cause
The courts are with the people on this
subject, and when the courts have the
people behind them the clergy may be
sure that divorce will never be limited to
"Scriptural grounds"
The English church prohibits marriage
with q deceased wife's sister. This alb
surd prohibition rests on the Levitical
law, which was devised for and applied TO
spolyGsmo1s people. The Leviticsl pro-
hibition of marriage with wife's sister
implies polygamy, and the command not
ito take a wife TO her sister to vex her"
clearly meant 20 warn the Jews not to
have two sisters for wives at the same
time, lest they make trouble as Jacob did
when he married two sisters. Leah and Re-
becca, his first cousins.
Bishop Phillips Brooks, at the late gen