The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1895-10-10

Mr.. w. 9. McGOwan then made one
OF the most thoroughly eloquent argu-
ments heard on any matter since the
convention assembled. Mr.. MCGOWAN
said that the only roal argument made
against tho scheme to have no divorce
was made by the gentleman from All
ken. " He said that this plan was put
ting a premium on adultery. l deny
| that. Exactly tho reverse is true"
| Turn loose married women without
husbands" in u community. with all the
| liberties of married woman and with
none OF the restraints of the unmarried
woman, and you would have no end of
adultery. Put this proposition to the
people and you will be showed under
10 to |. He was proud to 1.-Two in so
unique State in respect to the sane
tity OF tho marriage law If this was
sentiment, he, for one, was willing to
stand upon it. 1t was better for So
ciety at large that there should be no
divorce at all. Once let down the bars
and there is no telling where it will
end. His friend Farrow had argued
ably and well Of the effect of such a
prohibitory law on foreign divorces,
but that had nothing to do with this
convention granting divorces.
Mr.. w. j. Montgomery said that
Mr.. Hondcrson's substitute does not
put in the constitution anything that
would be at war with public senti-
'pcnt. 1t prcscribes that if the Legis-
lature provides any law for divorce it
shall be hedged about with proper re-
strictions. The law as it now stands
shuts out the good women Of the State
from redress in case Of adultcr0us hus-
bands. They should be relieved from
the criminal conduct of wicked and
designing men. AS far as abuse of tho
law is concerned, he believed gentle
men begged the question when they
referred to the great abuses common
in other States, for the amendment
makes it impossible for any such thing
to happen in this State.
Mr.. Sheppard said that he was graf
flied at the high plane on which the
discussion had been placed, and the
eloquence of it was worthy OF South
Carolina in her paimiest days There
is no proposition here to establish u
divorce law. Ever since 1868 we have
had Il provision authorizing divorces,
but we have had no divorce law. If
this provision is adopted it will be Il
long time before we will have one if at
all. 1t is horrible as a matter o. law
that a child be legitimate in one State
and under the band OF bastardy in an
other. And that is tho way it is now.
There are matters of legislation that
should be common and it is almost Ger
tain that Congress will pass a law
making divorces one of them. When
Congress cnacts u national divorce
law the Legislature should be able to
| enact laws Conformable to it. Even if
Congress has no power to pass Il divorce
| law, 1T has power to make Legislative Q
enactmcnts uniform IN tho States. He
believed in submitting it to the people.
IL they want, let them have the power
to put a divorce law in the Statute
books.
Mr.. Hutson thought that if in the
Judgment of the convention divorces
should not be granted, Mr.. Shcppard's
The advocates Of divorces must show
that they are necessary for morality,
that they tend to elevate society
| They have failed to sustain either OF
! these positions.
Mr. Breazcnle did not believe that
the time would come when divorces
would be necessary. .He rather be-
ieved that we are growing better and
better. He was opposed to " divorce
law not only on account Of morS lity.
but as matter OF economy. Nearly
every session Of the Legislature for
the past ten years has had Il divorce
Jill DClolo lGj anu W ptCNCuG GlllS he
! favored no divorce in the constitution.
Mr.. McWhite said that he had for
several years while in the Legislature
advocated divorces. The command
ment against committing adultery was
sufficient justification for tho adoption
OF the amendment. Men and women
have gone to other States, gotten di-
vorces, returned here and remarked
and are now living in bigamy because
no protection has been thrown around
them.
Mr.. Bowman, in answering Lieuten-
ant Governor Timmcrman's speech Of
views Of several eminent Baptist min
listers showing that divorces were
Scriptual, read directly opposite
opinions from DR.. Lansing Burrows
and the late DR.. Jas. G. Furman, both
Of whom were emincnt Baptists.
Mr.. Glenn wanted to know whcth cr
divorces could be granted under the
constitution even if the Legislature
made no provision for them. Mr..
Henderson and MIR. Sheppard both
said that they could not.
The vote was then taken on Mr..
Bowman's amendment prohibiting di-
vOrccs on any ground in. the State
The ayes and noes were called, and re-
'oioSt III oiio hNtopVlDl VI Ullt uIucuu-
mont by sc to -.
Yeas Aldrich, Alexander, Ashc,
Austin, Barton, Bates, Behre, Berry,
Bobo, Bowman, Breazcalc, j. 5. Brice,
Buist, Byrd, Cantey, Carver, Connor,
Cooper, Cunningham, Dent, Douglas,
Doyle, Dudley, Ellerbe, Floyd, Gary,
Gilland, j. p. Glenn, Gooding, Gray,
Gunter, Hamel, Harris, Harrison,
Hay. Haynsworth, Henry, Hers
douser, Howell, Hutson, Irby, II. f.
Johnson, Willie Jones, Klugh. Lee,
Lowman, Lybrand, McCalla, McCown,
McDermotte, MCGOWAN, Matthews,
Meares, Mitchell, Moore, Nathan,
Otis, Parlcr, Parrot, Patterson, Pat,
ton, Pcrritte, Rcdfearn, Rowland, :,
Sloan, A. j. Smith, Jeremiah Smith
Il. II. Smith, w. G. Smith, Smoak
Sprott, Stribling, Talbert, G. d. Till
man, Won KOnlitz, Waters, Watson,
Wells, Wharton, A. II. White, S. t..
White, Stanyarne Wilson, Winklcr--
86.
Nays: Anderson, Atkinson, Barry.
Bowen, II. w. I5ricc, Dennis, w. D.
Evans, Farrow, Field, Fitch, Fraser,
Gage, Garris, }. l.. Glenn, Graham,