Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1900-10-20
BRAVO FOR BElLINGER.
Attorney General Defends States Position on
Divorce.

Attorney General Bellinger has pre-
pared a most interesting letter on the
matter Of divorces in this state, says
the Columbia correspondence Of the
News and Courier. Several days ago
q letter was printed from an Indiana
correspondent, in which a series OF
questions were asked, and 1t was stated
that these inquiries were made be-
cause of certain vicious and uncalled
for remarks from some Indiana judge,
whose speciality was divorces. Mr..
Bellinger shows that in the entire his
tory Of the state divorces were per-
missible only for a few years, and that
was during the regime Of the carpet
baggers. If there were any way OF
proving the assertion by the records,
the Indiana Judge would soon have to
admit that the refusal Of this state to
recognize divorce has done far more
good than the promiscuous granting OF
them in. other states.
Mr.. Bellinger's letter has been care
fully prepared and is a valuable record,
which it would be well to keep. 1t
reads as follows:
COLUMBIA. S; c., October 12, 1900.
Chas. G. Singleton, 119 E. Norris
street, Indianapolis, Ind.-Dear Sir:
Press of official business has hitherto
prevented my sooner replying to your
letter of the 23d ult., with regard to
certain statements made by your Judge
Leathers, concerning the moral condt-
ton Of this state in the matter Of mar
ital relations.
1t now gives me much pleasure to re-
ply, though briefly and hurriedly, and
to give a short history of some OF our
legislation.
In 1712 the statute Of 81 Henry, 8,03S,
declaring certain marriages indissolu-
BILE, was made Of force in this state;
but up to 1872, in the language Of one
of our decisions, mo divorce vinculo
matrimonii had ever been granted in
South Carolina"
In 1868, during Reconstruction days,
when the state was within the, exclu-
sive control Of the carpet bagger and
the newly enfranchised Negro, a new
constitution was adopted, which in Ar
ticle XIV, Sec. 5, provided that "di-
vorces from the bonds Of matrimony
shall not be allowed but by the judg-
ment of court, as shall be prescribed
by the law"
The statute law being silent on the
subject, the legislature of 1872, (p. 30)
composed Of practically the same ma
terial as made up the constitutional
convention, passed an act permitting
divorce to be decreed for adultery and
desertion," and in 1874, (p 699) follow
ed this up by repeating the act Of 1712
for the stated reason that it threw
grave doubt" upon the force and ef-
feet of the divorce law Of 1872.
In the winter of 1867, the state was
redeemed" Ito use phrase familiar
in this section), the political tramps
took their carpet-bags and decamped
the state, and the white people once
more took charge Of the states affairs.
Promptly then the act Of 1878 (p. 719)
was passed, repeating "all acts or parts
Of acts heretofore passed relating to
the granting Of divorces"
During the six years G872-8) the
courts were open-three Sittings an
nually In each county for suits Of d.
vorce-and yet so seldom was the op-
portunity taken advantage Of that 1t
may safely be stated that no citizen
mites for investigation can recall three
cases Of divorce proceedings within his
knowledge. Only those can appreciate
the significance Of this who witnessed
the Generalization of Reconstruction
days." and the suffering, mental and
physical, which was the legacy left
this people by the war.
During the four years Of the war be-
tween the states the demand for men
at the front tore husbands from wives
often grooms from brides-from
homes Of comfort and plenty, frequent
ly Of luxury and wealth, compelling a
-
These were reunited amid scenes OF de-
struction and want which oeggar de-
scription; but changed conditions had
made, not lessened, the reverence Of
our people for the sacredness and in
dissolubility Of the marriage tie. Nor
was there such cause for scandal as to
suggest the desirability Of legalized
separation.
In 1895 the present constitution was
| formulated and adopted by conven-
tion elected that year by the people.
During the preceding II years, from
the date of the repeal Of the divorce
laws, QS7S'. it had been contended by
some that for the sake Of uniformity
with the laws of other states our laws
should provide for divorce for certain
causes.
On the second day Of the convention
| it was proposed that divorces ''' be
allowed for adultery" After a full dis
cussion off and on for nearly three
weeks, it was decided by an over
whelming vote that divorces from the
bonds Of matrimony shall not be alolw-
ed in this state" Cart. XVII, Sec. 81
AS to the statement made by the ex-
pert divorce judge, concerning this
state, mot only is adultery not indict-
able there" etc., I can only character
ize it as inexcusable ignorance. l am
informed that our statutes are among
the books in your state library situated
in the city of Indianapolis.
| BY the act Of 1880, (p32S), Grim. Stat
utes. Sec 251, the crimes Of adultery
and fornication are punished by a fine
of not less than s100, or imprisonment
not less than six months, or both In
the discretion Of the court. Nor Is this
all, for under our constitution, (Art1-
Gle II, Section g. Acknowledgement fol-
lows conviction in these and other
crimes, as bigamy, wife-beating, sod
omy, incest, assault with intent to raw
| ish.
You quote Judge Leathers as saying
further: 1.-The legislature of South Car
olina has found it necessary to regulate
by statute how large portion OF MS
property married man may give 10
his concublne."
True, and II you will excuse the com,
parison, this is more than can be said
| 30 hpin0 nothing