The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1901-04-01

In the course of a conversation regard
| ing the divorce laws. Mr.. Green said that
there had been no real change. as far
as legal procedure was concerned in
] Rhode Island for $50 years, and this In
! spite of the fact that radical changes
had been made In other states and other
countries.
! There had been. he said, changes In
the time OF the length OF residence re-
| quired but none in reference to the causes
for which divorce should be granted
Some years ago the time of residence
required was three years, then IL was
made one year, stlli later 1t was made
two years, and now IL is again one
year.
Much. Mr.. Green said, could be said
for and against some of the causes for
which divorces were granted but. he
wished to call attention to a certain
clause in the law, which he denominated
rs IAN outrageous piece of legislation
which should never have been enacted,
ana which should not be allowed TO re-
main on the statute books"
THAT TEN YEAR CLAUSE.
lie then turned to copy of tho gen
eral laws of the state and pointed TO
the following sections:
Section of chapter 195, general laws,
provides that divorces shall be decreed
Tor impotency. adultery, extreme cruelty,
wilful desertion for five years OF either
of the parties or for such desertion for
Il shorter period OF time. In the discre-
ticn OF the court. for continual drunken
ness, for tho habitual, excessive and in
temperate use of opium, morphine or
chloral, for neglect or refusal on tho
part of the husband. being of sufficient
ability. to provide necessaries for the
subsistence OF his wife. and for any
other gross misbchavior and wickedness
I'm either OF the parties rcpugnant 10 and
I'm violation Of the marriage covenant.
Section 8 OF the act, which was passed
in 1893. provides that whenever in the
trial of any petition for divorce from
tho bond OF marriage, IL shall be alleged
in the petition that the parties have lived
separate and apart from each other for
tho space of ~ least ten years, the court
may In it. discretion enter decree d-
vorcing TIE parties from the bond of
marriage. and may mako provision for
slimony.
1t was with section 3 that Mr.. Green
took issue. and he expressed himself in
no uncertain terms against It's provisions.
which hc claimed could not be made any |
worse than they are
WHAT IT REALLY MEANS.
This section, Mr.. Green stated. had been !
passed for the purpose OF enabling one |
man in particular a man who stood high |
In the esteem of political circles, TO OH |
tain something that he wanted, and he /
secured all he desired.
This was bad enough. for "a was the \
most pornicious form of class legislation. /
but that the section. having accomplished
it's purpose. should I've allowed to remain
n part OF the law was still worse.
why" said Mr.. Green. under tho
provisions of This section all that a mans
wife has 10 10 ~ 10 come into court ,
charge her husband with the crime OF
adultery. whether true or not docs not !
matter. because she has 20 furnish no
proof. but only 10 convince the court that
she has lived apart from her husband for
ten ycarp.
This might not be difficult and N The
court ig convinced, - can not only dts
olive the bond ~ marriage bur also COM
pei the husband TO give up half OF his
property 10 the wife. And such a section
Is allowed to stand on the statute BOOKS"
SHOULD BIZ REPEALED.
The most remarkable thing about this
section. Mr.. Green srslted. was that In all
tho agitation on the peTt OF clergy men I
and others. who claimed 80 be dcsirous
of purifying the divorce laws OF the
stat--f,,, mentioned this infamous Sec
ion had been made
Since 1886. when Il became a portion OF
he statute law. NO EFFORT had been made
rither iu or out og he legislature. 10
nring about its repeal, and yet IL was
plainly I'm sight az any man who read
,hsptcr is5.
That laymcn. a. a rule might be igno-
rant OF this provision. might hc adrnisss-
bic but 10 was impossible Tor members
lf the bar AMI others who had given tho