The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-07-12
discussed the subject when 1t was thrown
open TO the house disagreed with him.
Marriage and Divorce.

Judge Davidsons paper was a scholar,
~ review of the subject Of marriage ano
and the customs Of the ancfents in regard
to the marital relations. He also told
OF the practices OF the Orientals. ancient
and modern. and Of those Of various bar
barous aud semi-ciyilized tribes.
lie then turned to a discussion OF the
marriage customs Of various nations On
the form Of the marriage ceremony there
had always been and stu Is wide divi-
sion of opinion. Some were OF the belief
that marriage was a civil contract OF the
simplest kind and that the simplest pos
slble ceremony was the best Others.
however, believed In hedging the con-
tract about with the most stringent reg
ulations and impressive ceremonies, both
There was much to prove. however.
that the form OF the marriage ceremony
had little to do with its binding force
and the respect in which IL was held By
the parties. Under the Roman republic.
when marriage was civil contract OF
wholly unknown and the standard OF
public morality was high. Under the elm
pire. when marriages were celebrated
with elaborate ceremonies. religious ana
civil. divorce was TO be obtained on al
most any ground. at the Will OF either or
the parties. This merely indicated that
the strictness OF public mornls did not
always keep pace with the strictness OF
Laws to be effective must be backed up
by public sentiment. All things were i'm
these we're sometimes imperfect In their
enforcement But with the laws OF the
state OF Washington regarding marriage
and divorce Judge Davidson had little
fault 20 find. His only criticism was of the
statute allowing divorces 10 be granted
by the courts within their discretion. for
any cause that might prevent the par
ties from longer living together This
provision, Judge Davidson said, opened
the door for much fraud and should be
abolished.
Judge Jacobs. Of the King county super
for court. spoke indorsing Judge David
sons paper. He said he agreed with the
latter In thinking that the provision al
lowing courts TO grant divorces at their
discretion was Objectionable, and that
applicants for divorce should always be
required to set out In fun in their COM
plants all causes for divorce not named
In the statute.
Judge Jacobs. referring to remark OF
Judge Davidson's regarding the abolition
of common law marriages in this state
by a decision OF the supreme court re-
lated an interesting bit OF unwritten his
tory of pioneer days. He told how In
the early days II was the custom of the
settlers on Puget sound to take COM
mon law wives from the various Indian
tribes He paid a high tribute to the
sacredness with which these marriages
were commonly regarded by the white men
and the care which the latter devoted
TO the support and education of their
half-breed children. Then he told how
many years ago he was called upon to
HeIen1 tnTee score or more or pil set
tiers on charges OF unlawful cohabitation.
instigated by judge OF the territorial
court of moral sense too strict for the
West OF those days.
The matter came up before Judge Roger
r. Greene, IN Seattle. Notwithstanding
the fact that Judge Greene was an un-
compromising Christian and a man Of
the purest morals. he held with Judge
Jacobs that the marriages should be rec
ognized as legal and the rights of the
children and other innocent parties fully
preserved. II hope you will pardon my
egotism," said Judge Jacobs. but on
that occasion | made the speech OF my
life"
Judge Jacobs went on to say that while
ne was not prepared to say that the
decision of the supreme court holding COM
mon law marriages invalid, was not law,
he had strong doubts of the justice OF
the decision.
Arraigns the Divorce Law.
j; T. Ronald. formerly mayor of Seattle.
and n well known member OF the Seattle
mar. electrified the assembly by an ar
from which the following Is an extract:
Mr.. President 1 am willing to 20 on
record "a. saying that | believe that our
divorce law Is the most disgraceful law
on our statute books. or upon any statute
book In the United States. | also, while
don't say that the decision of the SUI
Preme court OF this state Judge Jacobs
has mentioned was not law, believe that
sexual anairs than anything that has
ever happened In this country. l be-
lieve that the common law marriage
marriage by contract held out by the
two contracting parties to the worlds
valid, and where people hold themselves
out 10 the world as being married they
ought TO be bound by that just as much
as by any other admission made as to any
other contractasi relation. And 1t ought
not
81
was not based upon authority. or il not
the law. but II has had very deleterious
effect You cannot open your eyes any
where in this modern civilization in this
country that you won't find persons Nv
ing together and not married. Actually,
they marry IN this country ON probation
because they can set a divorce in fifteen
each other and want TO get somebody
else III ! was the arbitrary king OF this
country / would not allow them TO get "A
divorce except for one or two offenses
The state OF society In New York, with
All our boosted civilization and morality.
II sreat deal better than IL is In the
state OF Washington. You cannot get a
divorce there except for one ofrsuse
II think the divorce laws of this state
are 4 disgrace 20 the state 1t Is no
trouble TO get divorce here. have seen
disgraceful divorces granted every divorce
DAY We have regular divorce day up
here In the courts, IL Is shocking 10 at
llulo story when there Is nobdy there as
Judge Jacobs SAYS. TO contradict it. when
II Tho real trath were known there IL alb
aoiutelN no more ground for a divorce
than there "a for somebody TO shoot ms
pbw-and there - 10 known ground for
any body doing that"
y. Mr. 8oasl9 sat down amid great laugh
Down la south Carolina.
J u. Howe % the Seattle bar, splde
richly on the law ~ maFrlage ana a.
Nogca ~ tho state ~ South Casas ma
where divorces are not now. and rave
not Tor more than twenty years hcen
granted for any Cause. AIR Howe sAla
that 10 was nevertheless the eas'sst
country la the wortt o. get married ir."
a stripe agreement 10 1.-Two together as
husband ard wife being sufficient
Mr.. Howe said ne Nss not certain but
thM this was as we'll as to have the or
srRct hedged about With too many e. fficU'-
ties. To Illustrate this ht told az A recent
detision ~ the EnEiiSh house 81 hlras IN
the case 81 Heual@s VS. BernlSs. Ir THIS
case it was held that tho - vet mArellea
u q clfray waa perfartaei by himself Nth
All due solemnity. NHE bot ta}t8 nltho1rR
TIE ceremony Was seen ara tho rlr'uai
promise ~ the parties overheard ty
concealed witness. whose presence VAS
uet known 20 either
Tho lords fu this sse. AR tfous vn}f