The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1895-10-08
THE DIVORCE QUESTION.

THE DIVORCE QUESTION.
The Convention Decides Against Di
vorces in this STATE for Any Cause
The debate in regard to granting di
vorces in South Carolina is one of the
most interesting and perhaps the
ablest of all in the constitutional con-
vention. The amendment offered by
consideration, which proposed to
grant divorces on the ground of adul-
terry alone, and this amendment was
strongly urged.
Mr.. Henderson in speaking on the
subject said that we ought to bear in
| mind that the marriage ceremony is
simple, the benediction pronounced
upon the contract by the man of God.
| When the contract is broken the inno-
cent party should be allowed to have
redress. When there is wrong the
| law should furnish q remedy. No man
can gainsay the fact that adultery is
wrong. We should have the manhood
TO put in the fundamental law rene =
dy for such wrong as that. The
remedy here suggested is hedged
\ around by all restrictions to prevent
its abuse. AS to the opening the Hood
gates of abuse, the only way to change
this provision, if it should be placed in
the constitution, is to have it changed
through the machinery Of another
convention and this is guarantee
enough that abuses will not come in.
If you don't grant divorces for this
premium on adultery. We can't shut
our eyes to the fact that in every
county of the State there are good
women who should be relieved from
the bands uniting them to adulter-
Gus men and it was in their behalf he
appealed.
Senator b. r. Watson then took
the floor and proceeded to make one of
the most feeling and forcible speeches
that was delivered during the day
against the granting of a divorce in
any manner. He wanted the consttu-
tion to stamp out the possibility even
ii the State. Some of his references
to the agony caused in homes by pa
rading of family troubles in courts
we're touching indeed. He said his
heart bled for what the women had to
bear in some cases, but it was better
for them to bear such things for the
sake of their children. He held up
Bible and said this Scripture was clear
as it could be, The majority of the
people of South Carolina were be-
levers in the Bible. He read what
the Bible said. Do this and you will
shock the sensibilities of hundreds of
Christians all over the State.
DR.. Zimmerman asked If the theo-
logians were not divided on the mean
ing of the passages in the Bible.
Senator Watson replied that they
were as to what Matthew meant, but
Mark and Luke made it clear.
Mr.. Jervey on behalf OF the commit
tee explained that the section as re-
ported by the committee neither pre-
scribes or prohibits divorces, but sim
| ply left it to the Legislature. Several
resolutions were presented to the COM
mittee on either side. The committee
| rejected all and 1T was recommended
that the law stand as it is. We advo-
cate that the Legislature shall be put
in the position 10 keep up with the
progress OF the age. Let them meet
the eXigencies of the occasion. 1t is a
matter of pride that although the con-
stitution permits the Legislature to
provide for divorces it has never had
| occasion to do so. AS to the merits of
the case he favored divorce with
proper restrictions-that is for the one
cause Of adultery.
Mr.. w. &. 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 real argument made
against the scheme to have no divorce
was made by the gentleman from All
ken. He said that this plan was put
ting premium on adultery. | deny
that. Exactly the reverse is true. y
| Turn loose married women without
husbands" in community. with all the
liberties OF q 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
40 to !. He was proud to live in sc
unique State in respect to the sane
tity of the marriage law Ii this was
sentiment, he, for one, was willing tt
stand upon it. 1t was better for so
ciety at large that there should be nj
divorce at all. Once let down the bars
and there Is no telling where it viii
end. His friend Farrow had argued
ably and we'll of the effect of such {
prohibitory law on foreign divorces
but that had nothing to do with thi.
convention granting divorces.
Mr.. w. j. Montgomery said tina
Mr.. Henderson's substitute does no
put in the constitution anything tina
, would be at war with public senti
ment 1t prescribes that If the Legis
lature provides any law for divorce
shall be hedged about with proper re
: sJrictions. The law as it now stand
: shuts out the good women OF the Stat
from redress In case of adulterous hus
T; bands, They should be relieved iron
the criminal conduct OF wicked an
: designing men, AS far as abuse Of tn
law is concerned, he believed gentle
mon begged the question when the
r referred to the great abuses commo
D In other States, for the amendmen
8 makes 1t impossible for any such thin
to happen in this State,
g Mr., Sheppard said that he was gra
d lied at the high plane on which th
i. discussion had been placed, and til
eloquence OF 1t was worthy Of Sout
+ Carolina in her palmiest days. Their
o Is no proposition here to establish
4 divorce law. Ever since 1868 we hav
i. had "A frnuiotnn attthnrizinn Hfunrna