The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-06-17
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.

r. w. Taylor in Harper's Weekly.
The most recent statistics of divorces
granted show that the number is growing
more rapidly than oar population. 1t is
true that a large majority of the divorces
are granted in the state in which the mar
riage took place; but without resort TO
statistics, everybody knows that thou
sands of divorces are annually granted
for causes which are inadequate If the
marriage relation is as solemn a thing as
we have become accustomed to think it;
and, worse than all, the causes so vary
in the different states that the effect Of
divorces granted in one state is 50 diverse
in the several commemorative Of the
Union as to make occurrences like those
just described frequent and shameful.
What is the remedy? The answer is OBJ
vious. Uniformity of law respecting first.
what shall constitute marriage, and, sec
ond how the, marriage relation may be
dissolved
Two methods of reaching this salutary
result have been proposed and urged.
First, by securing uniformity Of legisla-
ton in the several states. Second, by
so amending the federal constitution as
to repose in congress the power to enact
uniform laws respecting marriage and di-
Vorce.
The first of these methods has been
diligently pursued for many years by the
National Divorces Reform league, with
some useful results, especially in the way
of organizing state commissions, by pro-
ceeding in an orderly way to educate
and arouse public opinion, and by pro-
posing schemes of reform to the state
legislatures. Great good has undoubtedly
been done by this organization, and it's
work ought to be prosecuted until actual
uniformity is accomplished, either by
state laws or by the delegation to con-
gress of power to legislate on the sub
ject.
Every step toward uniformity is pro-
gress in the right direction; yet, when
one considers the diversity of opinion in
the widely separated areas of our coun-
try, the absolute impossibi1ity of securing
uniformity of declaration of the law by
the courts of the states, and that when
uniformity is once obtained, If ever it
is, there must be an eternal battle to
maintain it.. one conceives family the
difficulties which line the path toward
state uniformity.
On the other hand If the power is
lodged in congress to deal with the SUBJ
ject, the question of uniformity is an
Swered once for all; and, in my opinion,
uniformity and universally are more i'm
portant than a limitation of causes, neceS-
sary though that be.
Those who advocate uniformity through
the states have made a tactical mistake
in my opinion, in taking no part in the
advocacy of a constitutional amendment
giving congress suitable power They
have erred In supposing that the battle
has been fought for the amendment and
lost. The fact is that it has hardly com
menced. They have failed also to see,
if there is real opposition in certain
states to the enlargement of federal pow
er, that opposition will be more likely
to aid in state uniformity If there is a
threat Of national uniformity. But I do
not desire to be placed in an attitude
OF opposition to the Divorce Reform
league. My efforts will be put forth to
advance the cause they advocate. 1
merely fail to see why the two methods
should not be simultaneously pursued by
all friends of the reform.