San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1895-11-27

the great establi6her OF the fnstitu
ton, also adopted by the commo n
law Of England, being "no longer
4 twain but one flesh" IL we are to
surrender this theory, then / agree
with the gentleman from Charles
ton that it may be dissolved for
desertion, cruelty or any of the
causes that he suggests.
And this, Mr.. President, brings
me to my next point, that the South
Carolina theory OF marriage is the
correct one. The reference to the
Bible just given shows this. Can
anyone doubt that the marriage of
our great first parents in Eden was
established until death should part
them ? The New Testament writ
ers declare the fact, and Milton
beautifully describes how Adam
was not deceived, but seeing that
Eve had violated the command OF
God and was doomed to Danish
ment from Eden and perhaps
death, himself deliberately ate of
the forbidden fruit, bringing ban
ishment from Eden and "death and
all of woe" upon himself and
his posterity rather than be sepa-
rated from her, who was
Of his fiesh--his wife. According to
the modern idea, an application to
the Creator for a divorce, and the
surrender of another rib for a new
wife would have been the proper
thing. But the gentleman from
Aiken insists that the Bible ap.
proves divorce, or at any rate recog-
nizes 1t, and he cites Scripture to
show it. l shall not retort upon
him with the familiar quotation
from Shakespeare, but L deny that
our Saviour in any way lends coun-
tenance to divorce.
/ should like to verify my refer
ences if any gentleman will kindly
lend me his pocket testame Mt.
Don't all speak at once, gentlemen
In the absence of the text, then, l
shall be compelled to trust to my
memory, but Gen. Hemphill, who
is good seceder, will correct me
II err. | assert then, that the
Old Testament nowhere approves
divorce, and that our Savior did
not approve it. His declaration on
the subject was that "Moses, on
account of the hardness of their
hearts, permitted the Jews to put
away their wives" And all the
other references to it in the New
Testament show plainly that it was
not approved, but merely permit.
ted as social regulation suitable
to the times and circumstances in
which is existed.
But the gentleman from Aiken
insists that South Carolina is ''Put-
ting herself above the Bible" on
this question. Let us examine the
matter. Grant that the Old Tesla
ment did permit divorce in a linn
tied form to the Jews. Did it not
also permit polygamy? Are we
putting ourselves above the Bible"
because we do not allow polygamy?
Did it not permit the parent TO put
to death a disobedient child? Are
we quitting ourselves above the
Bible" because we do not? Did it
not directly advocate slavery? Are
the New England and western ia.
natics from whom we get these per-
nicious divorce notions quitting
themselves above the Bible" in
abolishing that institution? Stuff
and rot How idle, Mr.. President,
how utterly puerile ia the argu-
ment that the distinguished gen.
tleman seeks to build upon such a
foundation. How weak the cause
that requires the support of such
reasoning.
The truth is, as is commonly ad-
mitted, that all the social regula.
tions of the Jews were such as were
best adapted and necessary to the
government and needs of a wild,
semi.civilized people, just emery
ing from slavery, untamed and
fierce, a "stiff-necked and rebellious
generation" and were never inten.
ded as perpetual guide or obliga-
ton for all time.
In the next place, Mr.. President,
South Carolina has never "set
herself above all the other states"
in this matter. The common law,
under whose beneficent influence
England has developed the purest
and highest civilization known to
the world, never recognized di-
vorce. From her foundation up to
the year 1858, when the divorce
courts were established, the law OF
marriage in England was the ex.
act law that was have in South
Carolina today. AS an English
colony the common law became
our law, and it simply re-
,,,a;na pnahapood Snufh Coro