The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-10-10
Circulation stntcmcnr.
Inform Dirorce Laws.

The Episcopal Conference in san
Francisco has been devoung consider
able attention TO the subject of di-
vorccs. II has dealt with what should
be sufficient grounds for divorce. uni
formity in the laws, and the question
Of the marriage of divorced persons.
The conclusion reached was that uni
formity could best be attained through
the State Legislatures. the opinion be-
ing expressed that it would be difficult
10 procure a constitutional amendment
that would sustain a Federal divorce
law. 1t was argued that the people
would not take much interest in press
ing such an amendment This may be
so, but il seems probable that they
would take as much interest in a Fed
eral amendment as in some proposed
State legislation. More, in fact be
cause the presentation Of such an
amendment by Congress would give
national significance to the subject that
would almost certainly arouse interest
an it, On its face il looks more feas-
lille TO procure a two thirds vote in
Congress, and the votes Of three
fOurths of the States. than to obtain
concurrent and uniform action by all
Of the States Should only one fail to
act. and adopt a policy Of easy di-
vorces. it would leave the situation
still far from satisfactory-altho
course, the nearer we can get to uni
foTmity the better. AS nearly as posi-
Die the causes should be uniform. and
then there should be fixed rules govern
ing the recognition Of divorces obtained
In States other than those in which the
question of validity arises. The sim
plest and surest way would be through
Federal legislation which would APP
ply to al portions Of the country alike.
The House Of Bishops has also adopt
ed an amendment prohibiting the mar
riage Of divorced persons except in
cases Of divorce for cause existing be-
fore the former marriage The wisdom
Of such a prohibition has been much
discussed, and probably there will al
ways be wide difference Of opinion
respecting it Upon the one hand. It
Is argued that as many divorces are
obtained with a view TO another mar
riage. such a prohibition would reduce
are TO be regarded as an unmitigated
evil, the extent Of which IS to be deter
mined by mere numbers. there IS some
force in the point But there certainly
are cases in which il is better. both for
society, and for the persons fmmedi-
ately concerned, that they be legally
separated The question then arises.
whether. being separated. it is wise
that they should be denied the privi-
Iege OF forming other matrimonial al
hances. The denial may be considered
either as a punishment or as a measure
conducive TO the general welfare Of So
ciety. But in many cases. perhaps in
most Of them, one Of the parties. at
least is innocent Of wrong. and ought
not TO be punished. while IT may be
gravely questioned whether society
viii be benefited by leaving divorced
people IN q position that precludes hon
oTable marriage.
II is not likely, though, that the laws
VIII ever be so framed as 10 prohibit
the marriage of a divorced person who
is innocent Of wrong. The EpisCOpalan
Bishops have doubtless been inhuenc-
Cd by the consideration that according
20 the canOns Of the church marriage
is in the nature Of a sacrament. But
the law regards 1t as merely a civil
contract Hence. a marriage being dis
solved in legal contemplation there is
nothing wrong in contracting a new
one. The provision in some States de-
nying the right TO the party who was in
the wrong is simply a safeguard. the
purpose being To prevent the wrong
door from obtaining the benefit 4 his
or her own misconduct.