The record-union., 1895-08-02
CLOSED DOORS IN DIVORCE CASES.

In several States OF the Northwest
there have, from time te time. been con-
Quoted debates as to the wisdom of public
trials in divorce cases. In Oak ota, motor
ious for its ease of divorce, the debate is
frequently revived; and in Iowa. Illinois
and other States it experiences every now
and then burst of energy.
The RECoRD-UNIoN is Of the opinion,
after considering both sides of the ques-
ton, that to close the doors of courts to
the public in the trial of all divorce cases,
more conserves public good than to open
them; for the good of the whole COM
munity is the end to be attained, not alone
the interests of the parties Immediately
concerned.
AS rule, the influences most interested
in the publicity of divorce cases are the
sensational newspapers which cater to a
morbid taste, and the supposed demand
for the racy and the nasty. If it should
be contended that the public good and
the moral side of society are conserved
households, because these examples serve
as warnings, it is TO be replied that pre-
cisely the same would be true of the
making public through the press of the
orgies held in houses of Ill fame; Of the
scenes of debauchery and sensuality that
are enacted in the apartments of harlots,
and the more debased creatures whose
practices are nameless.
II the amours of q disloyal wife, the
Hbertinism of 8 faithless husband, the
cruelties of the head of the household, or
the weakness of the female side OF it. will
serve to deter others from disloyalty. in
humanity and sin, why will not expos
ure day by day of the baser crimes and
fouler scenes of sensuality. cruelty, in
denoy and weakness serve to warn youth
and turn it from the paths that lay hold
upon shame aud death Yet the sensa-
tional press does not dare to offend its
readers by adoption of such policy.
But there is another good reason why
there is more of injury than of benefit in
the publication of the details of divorce
trials. The children of the marriage are
innocent parties, and their rights should
be considered and conserved. No posi-
BILE good can be accomplished by shaming
them with the exposure of the sins of
their parents against the obligations of
the marital oath and in violation of the
duties of wedlock and parentage. We do
not think it possible to be shown that
any compromising good can be traced for
the evil OF visiting upon the innocent
issue of marriage the public shame that
attaches to il by reason of the publicity
of the details of the baseness of the
father or the unohastity OF the mother.
1t is bad enough that the bare fact of
the decree being granted and the cause
thereof should be announced. That much
of shame the child must bear; but it cannot
be successfully maintained that it is in
the interest OF matrimony or the public
good that the details of the trial justify
ing the decree ahould be posted upon the
bulletin boards of the sensational press
and thrust into the hands of children and
across portals OF the homes of decency.
What we have said as applying to the
sensational press applies also to the sem
sstional public, which jams and sweats
in crowded courtroom to lick lascivious
chops, while lawyers and witnesses dis
sect the morals Of households and pry
with the legal scalpel into the bodies of
matrimonial shame, wrong, cruelty and
misery. For the open divorce trial is
the hopper OF the scandal mill; it is the
legalized scavenger that gathers and dis
tributes its loads among the homes and
dumps its unsavory mess beneath the
noses of the many who should never be
brought into contact with such filth.
Nor can it be shown that public trials
of this order conserve matrimony, which
it is the scheme of the law to encourage.
The effect must be quite the oontrary-to
discourage entry into matrimony and
home building, the foundation of the
State. Experience has failed to prove
that open-door divorce trials ever yet
served as an incentive 20 that union
which Ia commended by Heaven and