Morning journal and courier., 1893-01-09
DIVOHkCEs

The divorce problem is one of the most
difficult with which society has to deal.
Shall people who do not Glove" each other
be compelled to remain tied together in
law, even though separated in fact, or
shall they be separated by law and given
liberty to "lovs" somebody else If they
want toa Is it more immoral to be and
remain unhappily married than to be more
or less happily unmarried or remsrriedi
Can such things be effectively dealt with
by lawi And is human nature so arranged
that there can be much real Improvement
in the relations of the sexes, except through
the very gradual improvement which many
think is constantly going on in that naturei
There are at least two views of mar
risge. One of them may be called the
sacred and the sentimental view. Those
who take this view cay that marriage Is
for life, for better or for worse; that it is
connected with religion and sanctioned by
IT.; that it is the foundation of society;
and that almost any evil is to be endured
before divorce. Thousands of men and
women, even in these somewhat loose
times, take this view of marriage, and
refrain from divorce because they do not
think divorce ia right. But there Is an
unsentimentsl view of marriage. Many
believe that there is nothing really sacred
about marriage; that 1t Ia largely a matter
of convenience and comfort; and that it is
much better to be divorced than it is to
try to stay married when marriage has
become uncomfortable and annoying.
Easy divorce is what such people believe
in and what they practice. They assert
that their belief aud their action are pro-
duotive of less unhappiness and less i'm
morality than the other view of marriage
10.
The easy divorce view has, We believe,
the approval of most lawyers who come in
contact with many cases of married un-
happiness. The hard divorce view has the
approval of those who are happily mar
ried, of some of those who are unmarried,
and of many (probsbly mosD of those who
are honestly and conscisntiously lsboring
to reform society. 1t has been found that
neither view, when put into law, has
worked satisfactorily. The reason, of
course, is that human beings can't be de-
pended on to be what they ought to be, or
to do what they ought to do. Just now
the hard divorce view is gaining adherents
because it has been plainly seen that the
easy divorce view hasn't worked very
we'll AS an illustration of the re-
action 1t may be mentioned that
! Representative Clover of Kansas has
introduced bill prohibiting courts In the
District of Columbia and the eeyeral terri
tories of the United States from granting
divorces. The bill permits unhsppily
mated couples to separate for life or for a
certain period, but the remarrisgs of either
of the parties thus separated is made pun
ishable by fine or imprisonment. An
interesting fact in connection with this
measure is that its author Is the defendant
in divorce suit now pending in the Kansas
courts. The bill was accompanied by a
petition signed by Nathalie Pollard, of
Richmond, Virginia, widow of E. A. Pol
lard, author of the "Lost Cause" Mrs.
Pollard has experienced a couple of di-
vorces herself and she prays congress to
speedily enact legislation that will here
after prevent such proceedings in the
District of Columbia and the territories.
If an effective law to prevent improper
and unsuitable marriages could be made 1t
would be beginning at the right end.
But people must be allowed to marry
whom they please, when they please. How
much can be done by law to remedy the
harm done and the mistakes made in
marrying ia a very complicated question.
Perhaps, as things are, too hard divorce
would be as bad as too easy divorce. But
uhn nan iall phsra To draw tha linei