The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-05-20
DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE.
SENSATIONAL SCENE IN FASHION
ABLE NEW YORK CHURCH.

at the Altar to Marry Couple, One
of Whom Had Been Divorced-Dis-
covered by Mere Chance.
From the Philadelphia Record.
New York, May IA sort of sup
pressed whistle of the kind that ex-
presses amazement better than any words
can do, led yesterday to a scene un-
precedented so far as is known in any
church In this city and will undoubted-
ly be the indirect cause for renewed
| discussion upon the relation of the clergy
to the marriage of any person who has
been divorced. The essential facts
were fully reported in the newspapers
to-day, but some interesting and dra-
matte details were narrated this morn
ing by Rev. DR.. D. Parker Morgan which
arc worth reporting, since they furnish
a vivid setting for an intensely sensa-
tional scene and also bear very strongly
on the more important question which
this scandal will be sure to raise.
First of all, it should be said that Dr.
Morgan had already had one unhappy
experience and one which, but for the
narrowest chance, might have occasion
ed him serious embarrassment and have
done damage to the Church of the Heav-
emily Rest, of which he is rector. 1t
was occasioned by the same desire that
led the betrothed couple yesterday to
seek marriage in an Episcopal Church by
am Episcopal clergyman.
Two or three years ago, DIR. Morgan was
asked If he would officiate at a wedding
upon a day named, but was frankly told
that the intending bridegroom had obtain
ed a divorce in California and had been
declared by the courts to be the innocent
party, Under the rules Of the church, IL
the Bishop makes no objection it is ne ~
Missile to marry one who has been JUS
titled by the courts in seeking a divorce
that is to say. the innocent party. But it
occurred to DR.. Morgan that in order to
be absolutely safe, since he did not know
either the bridegroom or the bride, or any
of their friends, that it would be we'll 10
fortify himself with a perfect defense in
case after the marriage he should discover
that he had been deceived. He therefor
insisted that the bridegroom make affid9-
Wit with notarial oath of the facts of his
divorce, of the decree and OF his own in
nocence, as set forth in that decree. Hav-
ing obtained this affidavit, which the bride
groom willingly gave, DR.. Morgan oftictat-
ed at the ceremony.
A Bishop Protests.
Three weeks later DR.. Morgan received
from Bishop Potter a note worded-s-s fol-
lows: Dear Morgan: 1 have received the
enclosed letter from the Bishop of Cali
fornia. What have you to say with re-
spect to its contents?"
The letter from the Bishop of California
asserted that 1t was reported in California
that Rev. DR.. Morgan, at the Church of
the Heavenly Rest, had married and
so manning the bride and the groom), and
desiring to he informed if the report were
correct, since the Bishop of California ex
pected that he had forbidden any clergy
man within his jurisdiction to marry these
parties or to give the use of any church
for that ceremony. The letter further inti-
mated that the bridegroom was in the di-
Vorce proceedings adjudicated to be the
guilty party.
DR.. Morgan, in reply to Bishop Potters
note, stated that he might have been i'm
posed upon, but inclosed the affidavit that
he might show that he had taken every
precaution within his power, and added
that he had no reason to believe that a
man of the apparent responsibility of that
bridegroom would take a false oath.
In reply, Bishop Potter wrote that if
men or women would lie about such
things and would swear to their lies 10
the extent even of committing perjury
it was not surprising that a conscientious
clergyman could be imposed upon. With
ter, but Or. Morgan was taught thereby
a. lesson. He determined that he would
hereafter marry no person who had been
divorced, at least, while the first hus-
band or wife, from which the divorce
was obtained, was alive.
ANoted Case.
In view of some recent experiences
which this latest embarrassment met
with by DR.. Morgan will intensity It is
probable that many other clergymen
will come to the same determination.
And this is especially important in the
view of many of our clergy because of
the apparent willingness OF those who
move in high social circles and who are
even prominent in church life to regard
the marriage Of a divorced person as
having extinguished any blemish that
the divorce itself might have occasioned.
AS for instance, a year ago the marriage
of divorced woman on the evening Of
the day her husband obtained a decree
against her to another, who was of very
high social and political distinction, be-
came topic Of national interest.
Under the statute law of New York
state, the woman must have been guilty
of the scriptural offense, for on no other
ground can an absolute divorce be obtain
ed here. Yet few days ago one of the
most fashionable of the spring weddings,
the bride being a member of a distin-
guished family. her father having held
two very high political Offices, and the
family having been prominent in church
circles, was followed by a reception that
was notable for the presence of many
who are of influence in what was called
high social circles, and among the guests
announced as having been invited and
present as well at the reception, was this
very couple whose marriage last year was
q topic of national interest.
To eocdetv and aSDpciallV hers If 60
ciety who are also prominent and influ-
entail in church circles, are willing to re-
ceive in fun favor those whom previous
divorce scandalized, then the feeling
among many clergymen here is that 1t is
time for the clergy even more emphatically
than ever before, to set the stigma of the
church upon the remarriage of those who
have been declared by the courts to be the
guilty party In divorce proceedings.
In fact, so far has this feeling gone
that recently in the very Connecticut
town where Mr. and Mrs. Perry Belmont
were married last year a clergyman re-
fused to marry a couple coming to him
much as hir. and Mrs. Belmont went