The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-01-02

| 1t is indeed singular that the de-
| faulting party to a contract of mar
,riage may be compelled to respond in
damages in satisfaction of breach
before marriage, which is presumed to
compensate for lacerated feelings and
wounded Sensibilities. but after the
marriage contract is completed and the
| hymenial knot securely tied by law,
when the masks of courtship are dis
carded and flaws and defects that We're
| Intentionally concealed when the con-
tract was entered into, exposed to view.
wounded feelings, perpetual embroil-
ments and heartaches. the bitter fruits
of misplaced confidence and disappoint
| ed love are not of sufficient seriousness
| or moment to warrant the assistance
of the law, but course of reDrehenS-
| ible conduct or some disgraceful act
that the law invites must be resorted
to or committed, that a hungry and
fault-finding public may have some
thing TO gossip over, before relief can
be obtained from the unhappy rela-
| tionShiD.
Think of the natural injustice and
monstrosity of a law that compels men
and women who have discovered them
selves to be entirely unSuited for each
other, either through mental or physi-
cal incongruity, or both, and altogether
incapable of effecting a reconciliation.
to still continue to live together with
no hope of an honorable legal separa-
ton The law practically compels this
very thing.
Divorce law should be predicated
upon physiological law, the observance
of which is Indispensable to secure
matrimonial felicity. On the contrary,
the character of existing legislation is
to ignore these fundamental considera-
tons.
The divorce code, as it now exists.
is, by its incompleteness and restrictive
! character, an ugly monument of mis-
directed legislation, foreign to the car
dinal principles of nature, and not at
all calculated to promote domestic hap
piness.
To compel the candidates for the
matrimonial adventure-who, as rule,
are ignorant of the physiology and
phrenology of the human system, and,
therefore, incompetent to correctly pass
upon the laws of temperamental adap-
tation-to continue to live together al
ter they have discovered themselves
totally inadapted, and sustaining an
unhappy and obnoxious companion
ship. is immoral and unnatural in the
extreme. Laws should be enacted by
which the disappointed and discomfort
ed parties may throw Off the burden
some yoke by voluntary agreement.
Such unrestricted freedom would be en-
and most generous conception Of con-
stitutionaI and individual liberty.
When the purpose of marriage has be-
come frustrated, it ceases to be worth
preserving, and it fails when either of
the parties desire to discover the re-
lation, much more so when its DISCO
luton is mutually desired.
The marriage contract should be
placed in the same category with other
civil contracts, clothing it with quite
the same legal attributes, empowering
the parties to terminate the relation
by mutual consent, in writing, filed
with the clerk of the district court.
Whose business is it if the life of
married couple has become repulsive,
by mutual agreement separate and
marry again? Why the state assumes
to be very materially concerned, so
much so that it constructs impossible
barriers against the attainment of
these conditions, and, instead OF being
permitted to dissolve their union, they
are destined to stem lifeS current to-
gether in a state Of belligerency and
incessant turmoil, unless they have the
courage to commit some statutory Of
fense and unbosom the sacred secrets
of their home to the public. Yes, they
may have a divorce amenSa ct thora,
and avoid living together, but a second
valid marriage cannot be contracted.
Who does not know and will not recog-
nize that such a law is an inducement
to bigamous and immoral practices by
all who procure such a quasi termina-
ton of the marriage contract? 1t
contravenes the demands of nature,
and will ever be violated. 1t is the in
dividual happiness of the parties them
selves, inasmuch as it will not be sub
versive of public morals, that should
be the paramount consideration in the
Ion
of the institution of marriage.
The institution of marriage is not of
divine origin. On the other hand, it
bears abundant traces of the finger
marks of man and world of wretched
and unhappy people, who have rushed
thoughtlessly and inconsiderately into
its turbulent precincts, powerless to
extricate themselves, solemnly testifies
But, it is argued, if we throw down
the bars of matrimony, permitting
easy egress, that people will marry
only to be divorced; that slight provo
cations and petty feuds, and tempo
rary storms of bad temper, would re-
suit in legal separations. There would
unquestionably be some instances
where matters of trivial concern would
terminate in divorce, but these would
be isolated testimonials. The great
majority of cases would be predicated
upon inCerninable quarrels, dissensions
and broils of long duration, and GER
tain physical incompatibilities
1t is only those who have been more
fortunate in their marriage experience
that advocate greater stringency.
Those not thus favored, and in whose
behalf the new code of divorce would
be promulgated, think and reason diff
ferently, and rightly so, too
The extreme rightly in allowing df-
vorce amongst Christian people may be
traced directly to the divine injunction
given in the infancy of the race, What
God has Joined together must not be
put asunder." 1t is fair to presume
that, in the absence of such supposed
law, or mandate, the liberal spirit of
Pagan Rome would be abundantly
manifested in the legislation of today.
Let the law-mal1ing bodies reflect on
these momentous considerations. for
they involve the most solemn interests
with which we are concerned; and let
the light of progressive reason shine in
on the dark and hampered statutes.
Ogden, Dec. 81. ELIJAH FAIR.
Volcanic Eruptions
Are grand, but Skin Eruptions rob life