The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1895-10-09

law. The Biblical idea was that 9
man could put away his wife. but ne
redress was given to the woman. He
spoke for some time.
Mr.. w. G. MCGOWAN then made one
of the most thoroughly eloquent argu
ments heard on any matter since the
convention assembled. Mr.. McGowar
said that the only real argument made
egainst the scheme to have no divorce
was made by the gentleman from
Aiken. He said that this plan wa:
putting premium on adultery. | de
ny that. Exactly the reverse is true.
Turn loose married women without
husbands" in community, with al
the liberties of a married woman anc
with none of the restraints of the un
married woman, and you would d have
no end Of adultery. Put this PROPOSE
ton to the people and you will be
showed under 10 to l.. He was prouc
to- live in so unique State in respect
to the sanctity of the marriage law. i
this was sentiment, he. for one, wa:
willing to stand upon it. It was bet
ter for society at large that there shoulc
be no divorce at all. Once let dowr
the bars and there is no telling where
it will end. His friend Farrow hac
argued ably and well of the effect Of
such prohibitory law on foreign di
vorces, but that had nothing to dc
with the convention granting divorces
Mr.. Houser knew he was only pig
my among the giants His voice was
very weak and he could scarcely be
heard as he proclaimed that he thank
ed God that South Carolina had always
stood out against divorce law. He
went on to picture what dire results
would follow the introduction of a di-
vorce law. He hoped that the conven,
ton would keep South Carolina on
her high plane.
Mr.. J. II. Montgomery said in accept
ing any one of the three propositions
they would be doing something of mo:
mentions concern to their people Ii
they were going to do anything they
should do what would protect the State
from designing men. Their action in
giving married women all the rights
others had over their property was
taken because of the corrupting in.
fuence of wicked, debauched or
criminal husband. Sometimes he
thought "Oh, South Carolina what
crimes are committed in thy namer'
Mr.. Montgomery spoke at length on
the matter and presented many strong
measures why, reasonable divorce
law should be passed.
Mr.. Sheppard made powerful
speech, his main point being that. as
Congress might legisiate on the mat
ter, the hands of our lawmakers should
not be tied by prohibition in our own
Constitution.
Mr.. Hutson then took the floor
against any divorce law. He sum-
the many arguments made
and met them in a judicial way.
Mr.. Ragsdale said congress had no
right TO pass any divorce law for all
the States. The, sentiment of this
State was opposedtto such law.
Mr.. B. B. McWhite spoke earnestly
and forcibly in favor Of allowing di-
yorces for one cause only-aGultery.
Mr.. Won Kolnitz opposed granting
divorces in this State; but favored the
recognition of those granted in other
States.
Mr.. Bowman then quoted what the
late DR.. James Furman and DR.. Ian
sing Burrows, two noted Baptist di-
vines, had said about the construction
of the Biblical passage on the subject.
They were both against divorces.
Mr.. Patterson moved to lay the
of Mr.. Henderson on the
table. The president ruled this out Of
order.
The roll was then called, the vote be-:
ing on the adoption Of Mr. Bowman's
amendment. The: result was as fol-
lows,
Yeas-Aldrich, Alexander, Ashe,
Austin, Barton, Bates, Behre, Berry,
Bobo, Bowman, Breazeale, Brice, J. S. !;
Buist, Byrd, Cantey, Carver, Connor,
Cooper, Cunningham, Deut, Douglass,
Doyle, Dudley, Ellerbe. Floyd, Gary,
Gilland, Glenn, j. P; Gooding; Gray,
Gunter, Hamel, Harrison, Hay,
Haynsworth, Henry, Hers, Houser,
Howell, Hutson, .Irby, johnson, 7. E. );
Jones, Willie, KIugh, Lee, Lowman,
Lybrand, McCalla, McCown, McDer-
motte, MCGOWAN. Matthews, Meares,
Mitchell, Moore, Nathaps, OTIS, Par
Ter, Parrot, Patterson, Patton, Perritte,
Redfearn, Rowland, Russell, Sloan,
Smith, A. J :; Smith, jeremiah; Smith,
W. c.: Smith, R. F.; Smoak, Sprott,
Stokes, Stribling, Talbert, Tillman,
:. D.; Fonkolnitz, Waters, Watson,
Wells: Wharton, White, A. H. VIII;
son; .Stanyarne; Winkler-Total Sc"
Nays-Atkinson, Barry, Bowen,
Brice, T. w; Dennis, E. j.; Evans,
W. D.; Farrow, Field, Fitch, Fraser,
Gage, Garris, Glenn, J. L.; Graham,
Henderson, D. S.; Hender=
son, William; Hodges, Jervey, John
stone, Geo.. Keitt, Kennedy, E. j.;
Kennedy, j. W.; McMakin, McWhite,
Miller, Montgomery, J. D.;
Montgomery, W. j.; Morrison, Mich
olson, Peake, Ragsdale, Reed, John;
Rogers, Rosborough, Sheppard, Smalls
Stackhouse, Sullivan, Taylor, Tillman,
B. R.; Zimmerman, Whipper, Wigg,
Wilson, ". B.; Woodward
Total 40. x
Senator Tillman then offered an
amendment to add the words but the
courts of this State shall recognize and
give full credit to the judgment Of the
courts of:otherstates in divorce cases."
Senator Tillman spoke in favor of
his amendment, and Mr.. Patton in
opposition.
Mr.. Klugh of Abbeville offered as a
substitute a provision that the legisla
,ure could legitimize by special act
children borne of parents in another
State, following the granting of a di
7orce in that State.
Mr.. Patton called attention to the
,act that this would be in direct con-
1ict with clause to go into the legis
ative article forbidding special legisla-