The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-03-17

SOluDly Dlnd1ng until the deaIn OIL one VI
the parties thereto. And this was al
ways the common law of England from
time immemorial until the adoption OF the
divorce act in 1857. The Presbyterian
Magma Charta-the Westminster Confes-
sion-took a new departure in 1649, and
formally expressed the opinion, that I'm
case of adultery after marriage it is law
full for the innocent party to sue out a
divorce, and, after the divorce, to marry
another as if the offending party were
dead Ch "a C. V. And this seems to
be as far as Christians of the present
day, on the subject of divorce a vinculo
are prepared to go. 1t is true the Holy
Scripture only permits in terms the hus-
band to put away his wife for the one
cause of fornication, but, it may fairly be
argued, by reason of the fact that a man
and his wife are accounted one flesh
that whatever cause of divorce is allowed
to the husband to dissolve the bond OF
union may be understood and implied to
be allowed to the wife also.
The bill under consideration is to limit
divorces a vinculo to the causes mention
ed in the Code. If this bill passes the
divorce law will be in much better shape
than it is at present. The only cause
for divorce will be adultery by one party
or the other and there will be one i'm
pediment to a true marriage for which the
marriage may be declared void at the in
stance of the husband. The effect OF
every divorce a vinculo under the Code
is to permit either party to marry again.
| think this should not be permitted to
the guilty party and in this opinion | be-
lieve | am in agreement with the inn
mense majority of the Christian people
of this State, and elsewhere. l know that
a number of the most learned theologians
contend, that while the bond of matri-
mony is indissoluble except for one cause.
yet that when dissolved for this cause
the dissolution of the marriage tie is
complete and that either party may mar
ry again This is logical argument,
and. although not my view, as legisla-
tor. 1 am willing to accept it, hoping that
a better view may prevail later on. Ii
the guilty party, after divorce, may marry
again, the permission, in my opinion,
shotld not be granted by the law uncon-
ditionally-otherwise the law would seem
to encourage divorces and immortality.
However, this is mooted point, even
among Christians.
The bill under consideration goes fur
ther 1t permits all those heretofore
divorced in cases Of abandonment to re-
parties, and the bill does not apply to
cases of divorce now pending. l do not
approve of these exceptions in the bill
but / do not think any who support the
bill are inconsistent in doing so, Ii they
first vote to strike out the Objectionable
clauses. 1t may be better to vote for the
bill in the shape it came from the House
because it may be the best bill which
can be passed now. To go book to the old
law in the Code will be much better than
to continue the present facilities Tor
divorce in this State which degrade us
in the eyes of the Christian world. The
law now permits the party who is without
fault in a divorce for abandonment to
marry again, and yet it is notorious that
both sides marry in such cases. 1t is
not uncommon for the husband to sue in
one county and the wife in another and
both secure divorces with permission to
marry again. And the law is so loosely
framed as to permit these col!uSlvH
divorces. I regard such a condition OF
things as wrong and disgraceful. In old
times in North Carolina before we had
begun to tamper with our divorce laws,
there was scarcely divorce granted IN
a year-now understand it has happened
that twenty-six divorce cases have been
pending at one term of a Superior court!
Twenty-six suits going on at the same
time in one county. / do not believe that
as many divorces are granted in Great
Britain and Ireland in a year, as are
some times granted in North Carolina IN
three months. One Senator asks me II
this is not on account of the influence oil
the Church of England and of the Roman
Catholic Church in England and Ireland
both these churches being opposed to any
divorce whatever from the bonds of matri-
mony for causes occurring after marriage.
To very great extent, yes-but the Pres
byterian Church of Scotland has thrown
the weight of its influence on the same
side. And do not know that there are
any of the Christian. churches of Eng
land. Scotland and Ireland or of the Uni
ted States which are not throwing the
weight of their influence against lax di-
vorce and for the upholding OF the mar
riage law of the gospel. And | know,
that the influence of every Christian
church in this State is in opposition to
every divorce law which is not sanctioned
Dy Jne RCSpGI. senators may ucluue IHelu-
selves into thinking otherwise, but if we
ignore the words of Christ on this sub
jcct some of us on our return home,
after the adjournment of the Legislat-
ture may find that we have utterly ig-
ncred and mistaken the wishes Of our
constituents. Divorce is sapping the very
foundation of our social fabric.
1t is true, that North Carolina is not
by law Christian State, and the Christ
ian religion is not part of the law of
the land but our laws and statutes are
to large degree pervaded with Christ
ian spirit and aim. The sermon on the
Mount, being the words of the Divine Law
Giyer and not the law of the State, cn-
less expressly enacted. should be a lam
tern and guide to the Senators and Repre-
sentativcs in the General Assembly elect
ed by those who profess and call them
selves Christians. If changes in divorce
laws are desirable, they should approach
nearer to and not further from the COM
mandment of Jesus Christ in Holy Scrip
ture. The statute law Of this State on
the subject of matrimony and divorce can
be made by the General Assembly con-
trary to and in defiance of the law of
Christ-but can any sufficient reason be
Co. z~s,