The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1895-10-10

!
act, when it is the duty of one who sits
in representative capacity to vote
contrary to what he believes to be the
wishes Of his constituents. But the
case must be clear; his conviction
| must be strong-nay, must be absolute
before he can justify su. h step:
Therefore l assert that the burden OF
proof lies hesvy and strong npon those
gentlemen who here seek to overthrow
Jr alter the ancient or established in
stitutivns Of our State. Tt must not
be 3 matter OF experiments their proof
iau&t lie beyond Il shadow OF doubt;
their argument must bring absolute
conviction.
Again, Nr. President, experience is
great matter What docs our eNpe-
rience in South Carolina, and what
does our observation of conditions ln
other States teach u.s. Can the distin-
guished gentleman from Aiken point
lis to State where the marital rela-
t;cDs are more sacredly observed and
the institution mere icnlously guarded
not by the law, ! rcter to the people
than ;n South Carolinu? Is it Geor-
c,n, or North Carolina, or New York,
or South Dakota, or, God save the
mark. Ohl.Loma? Docs he wish to see
"Iivorcc trains, as tn, y are playfully
termed, running iato South Carolina,
crow,!.d with men and women who
have concluded that they prefer some
other matrimonial pastuTv, and desire
the lease for term that they have
entered into aunulled? Is this the
state OF affairs that be wishes to estab-
l;sh in South Carolina? Or, since the
enactment Of snch law would require
our Courts to recognize the divorces
granted III other States, does he wish
10 see citizen of this State leave for
Oklahoma and, after having establish
cl ninety dnys' residence" and OBJ
tanned q divorce from the wife here,
Emilinglv return with his new wife,
ready for lev trial ut matrimony?
But, Mr.. President, T am reminded
by the gentleman that he proposes to
grant divorces for adultery alone.
And SO he does But he hid scarcely
taken his seat when The eloquent young
gentleman from Charleston Mr.. Far
row comes mp serenely with a propo-
sition that cruelty. desertion and what
not are also grounds. "Obstat prln-
cipies" is a mighty safe motto. Who
will undertake to say where the thing
will stop. Every argument used by
the gentleman from Aiken, except the
Biblical argument, which shall pres
emily show amounts to nothing, ap-
plies with equal force to divorces for
NJ NJ. Henderson: But if public SEN
timent is as strong here as you have
stated, why not grant divorce for adul,
terry, and trust to ublic sentiment to
prevent its going further?
Mr.. Patton: Because I don't want
vou to debauch public sentiment.
Human nature is weak at best; and
once We have surrendered our high
position in this matter We are apt to
follow the custom to its proper and
legitimate conclusion. Our law is
that marriage is absolutely lndlssolu-
Dle, the man and woman, following
the words Of the great estabhsher Of
the institution, also adopted by the
common law Of England, being ''no
longer twain but one flesh" If we
are to surrender this theory, then l
agree with the gentleman from Char
lesion that it may be dissolved for de-
sertion, 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
10 the Bible just given shows this. Can any
on" doubt that the marriage OF our great
first parents in Eden was established until
death should part them the New TeSta-
nent Writers declare the fact, and Milton
beautifully describes how Adam was not de-
ceived. 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. brlnS-
ing Punishment from Eden and "death and
all of woe" upon himself and his posterlty
rather than bc separated from her who was
Of his neSh-his wife. According to the
modern idea. ;sn application to the Creator
for a divorce and the surrender OF another
rib for Il new wife would have heen the pro
per thing. But the gentleman from Aiken
insists that the Bible approves divorce. or at
any rate recognizes it. and he cites Scripture
10 show it, shall not retort upon him with
the familiar quotation from Shakespeare, hut
] deny that our Saviour in any way lends
countenance to divorce.
should like to verify NY references ii any
gentleman will kindly lend me his pocket
Testament. Don't all speak at once, gentle
men. In the absence Of the text. then, l
shall be compelled to trust to my memory,
hut Gen. Hemphill. who is a good seceder,
will correct me if 7 err. l assert. then, that
the Old Testament nowhere approves di-
vorce and that our Saviour 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 thai
il was not approved, but merely permitted
as social regulation suitable to the times
and circumstances in which it existed.
But the gentleman from Aiken insists that
South Carolina is "puttinS herself above the
Bible on this question. Let us examine the
matter. Grant that the Old Testament did
permit divorce in a limited forms to the
Jews. Did it not also permit poyGamy?
Are We putting ourselves above tn" Bible
because We do not allow poiygamy? Did it
not pcrmit the parent to pnt 10 death DISC
l;client child? Are we "ruttir= ourselves
above the Bible bccauS" W" do not? DId 1t
not directly advocate slavery? Are the New
England and Western fanatics from whom
We get these pcrnri9us '!lT"r:c notions put
-inG themselves .'ai,oy. the Bible in abolish
in. tl,fsin-titutiOn? stuff and rot. How
Idle. Mr.. &asic!"nt. how utterly tueri!s is
the ar.,un.r4;.at the distinguished ""ntle-
mau ...:,k- :. Luisi upo" such foundation.
How weak the cause thu requires the sup
po"t II olJ''h reHsoHlnS.
: r:,.. -.,.h :. :: cnr.m0ulE aGm!tted. !.