The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-03-11

which maintain free divorce systems are
to women what Canada was to the slaves,
and that the churches and their minis
ters are united for their own purposes
In keeping control of the conditions at
tending the granting of divorces, and,
originally ordained by men for their own
advantage and have usually. If not al
ways, everywhere In the past operated
with sore injustice to the weaker sex.
Mrs Stanton may be- said to present
the extreme view OF the question, re-
garded from the view point of the most
advanced advocates of the social and
personal rights and immunities of her
sustained. For instance, she declares
that 1t is a principle OF the English COM
mon law that marriage is civil con-
tract, and that In the absence. OF express
statutes the rule of the common law as
she states it prevails This is not good
law, common or otherwise The eccles-
iastical courts. Of England have always
had jurisdiction of questions of marriage
and divorce, and marriage has never been
regarded as a mere civil contract In Eng
land. The theory of common law mar
riage is based on an old decision of Chan
cellor Kent, and has never been accept
ed as a principle Of American law hand
ed down to us through the channels of
the English common law. But that ques-
ton is neither here nor there. The leg
islation of most of the American states
has placed marriage on the basis of a
civil contract, and divorce free is the
outcome
The great defect In Mrs. Stanton's ar
ticie is that she chooses to ignore the
bearing on the best interests of society
of a liberal or a restricted divorce sys-
tenn She Views the question apparently
from the height of one who thinks that
the marriage relation should not be main
tanned after serious disagreement has ex-
listed betweeen the parties to it. She has
not word to say as to the effect upon
the offspring of the parties or on the
social effect of the progressive form of
polygamy which so many students of
American divorce regard as the greatest
danger attending on the facile untying
which prevails by the courts Of the mat
rimonial knot. She is wrong in her as
sumption that men are the chief seekers
after divorce. She ignores the legal con-
dittons which compel any and every man
who tires of the marriage relation to
maintain his wife and family in case of
the dissolution of the marriage through
fault of his; while woman may throw
down all the barriers which unite her to
her husband. her home and her family
and go free to do as she pleases whether
the fault is hers or her husbands
1t is acknowledged that the question
has many difficulties; that woman is
often the victim of severe divorce Jaws,
but, more often still, of those which are
too lax that no hard and fast rule which
renders marriage virtually indissoluble
can ever hope to receive the sanction of
the American people, and that perhaps
1t never ought to receive such sanction.
But this is at best but one side OF the
picture. There is another and a reverse
side to it as well.
The agitation for uniform federal .di-
vorce system is mischievous in the high
est degree. Unfess the authorities of the
several states can agree upon uniformity
it can never be reached. If such uniform
ity is ever reached it must be done along
lines which will safeguard not alone the
rights Of one of the parties but Of both,
as We'll as the rights and interests of
the children of the marriages whose dis
solution is sought. No mere sentimental
view such Is Mrs. Stanton presents in
her article viii ever receive the approval
Of the American people.