San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1895-11-27
Che Daily Light.
wED'sDAY, NOVEMBER %, '95
NO DIVORCES

Discussed Before the Convention.
"What God hath joined together
let not man put asunder."
1t will be remembered that the
dispatches in the LIGHT some
weeks showed that the constitu-
tional convention in South Caro-
lima had adopted an article, not
only putting it beyond the power of
the legislature to enact any divorce
laws in South Carolina, but also
refusing to recognize as legal a
divorce granted in any other state.
The whole world will watch with
interest the result Of their expert.
ment in the Palmetto state. 1t
may be radical, but it is evidently
a step in the right direction. Deep
rooted diseases sometimes require
radical remedies. Below we give
verbatim, from the journals OF the
convention, the argument OF Mr..
II. Comper Patton, when the ques-
ton was up for consideration, and
no doubt, it will be read all over
this country with interest by ex.
South Carolinians and others. He
said:
Mr.. President:-The proposition
upon this question now under con-
sideration opens up three roads
from which we may make choice.
IL we vote for the amendment pro-
posed by the delegate from Aiken
we establish divorces in South Car
olins; if we adopt the proposition
of the delegate from Orangeburg
we forever prohibit divorces; il we
allow the committees recommen-
dation to stand unamended no one
can tell where we stand.
/ am aware that the section as
reported by the committee Is in
the exact language used upon the
subject by the present constitution.
In the case, however, to which the
gentlemen from Charleston re-
ferred, where our Supreme court
held that a foreign divorce, under
the facts of that case, would not be
recognized in South Carolina, we
had that section under considera-
ton. 1t was strongly urged by op
posing counsel, and l felt the force
Of the argument, that while this
section did not establish divorces
in South Carolina it recognized the
institution and was a radical
change in the policy Of the
state. OF course L answered
that this section was the work OF
aliens who held control of the state
in 1868, and that the repeal of all
divorce laws in 1878 was an utter
Reputation Of this idea and an in
deX to the real sentiment of our
people. Now IL we reenact this
section it will lend double force
and weight to the argument that
we should recognize foreign di.
vorces and will also encourage our
legislature to establish a divorce
system in this state.
1t is clear, therefore, that the
section as reported by the commit
tee should not stand. We should
settle this matter here and now.
The two amendments that have
been offered make the issue sharp
and clear. II we want divorces let
US have them il not let us say 80
and put an end forever to all
doubt and speculation upon the
subject.
Allow me to say, in the first
place, that l am absolutely Cd
posed to any system Of divorce OF
what nature or kind soever; and l
beg to add that / am thoroughly
satisfied that the public sentiment
OF the state is equally clear and
fixed upon this subject.
In the first place the press OF th e
state, the accurate reflectors as well
as moulders of public sentiment, is
almost unanimously against di-
vorce. OF the daily papers only one,
The State, favors divorce; and all
OF the weekly papers that l am &C.
quainted with, both religious and
secular, are earnest in their protest
against the enactment OF such a
law. The women Of our state do
not want it, and the pulpit lifts its
awful voice against a law that
tends to weaken the obligation and
destroy the holy state of matrimo
ny--that solitary remnant OF Eden't
sacred pleasures.
In the next place the sentiment
of our people has always opposed
divorce. Up to 1868, when the
present constitution unpleasantly
referred to upon this floor as .'tha,
radical rag" was forced upon oul
people by New England carpet.bag
gers, each exhibiting in himself the
peculiar combination of "the puri
tan and the backlog" backed by
the ignorant negro votes, they