Evening star., 1902-01-06
Divorce Under the New Code.

TO the Edltor OF L be Evening star.
The unparalleled rush for divorces filed
during December, so as to profit by the old
law before the new code took erect on
January l. shows the deep interest taken in
the matter by the citizens, of the District
of Columbia. The new code allows but one
cause for divorce, adultery-a crime eA-
tremely difficult to prove; so that we
are practically without remedy for do
mestic infelicites. The no-divoree system
was thoroughly tried in France up to the
time of the establishment of the present
French republic. At that time no divorce
had been granted for many generations by
the civil government; but 1t was opser'eo
that couples quarreled and separated as
frequently as they now do under the new
divorce law; and it was estimated thas
under this no-divorce system one-hfth OF
the whole population of France were pas
tards. Do the clergy or members OF Con-
eress wish TO produce the same state or
immortality in the District of Columbia
This outcry against divorces seems to orlgi-
nate with the clergy, who, perhaps, nave
not always sufficiently exercised their rea-
son on the biblical texts they quote. fhey
charge that the lawyers and courts are
running the country, breaking up famiEes
by divorces. Nothing could be farther from
the truth. No lawyer ever sees either party
I-,,ntn long after the Sundering has been
done by the parties themselves. In this
District the marriage relation must nave
been broken for two years before any U IL
of complaint can be filed on the ground OF
desortion. How any sane man charge
the LAWYERS or the judges with having done
the sundering in such cases! 1nese pafties
did their own sundering, and When tnere IS
no longer ray of hope tnat they Will ever
again live together-when the real marriage
no longer ex;sts-then the injured party
seeks a lawyer and asks him 10 go INTO
court and legalize the separation Just now
| was conversing with nne speciiheh "
,,,Ix- cicrl,t aHp
married a well-to-do man eighteen months
ago. He lived with her just two days, and
then without the slightest apparent reason
therefore, left her and mas never retuIneo, !,
but instead has written her cruel letter
directing her to apply for a divorce! But
the new code goes into effect January 1,
and her two years of desertlon WIN Hot
have elapsed until next May-l9o2. She is d
married woman. though she has 40 -hus-
band Is this the kind of marriage our
country needs? Does such a marriage pro-
mote morality?
The new code does not permit the guilty
party in a divorce case to remaffy. "A
Young man under great temptation mas
gone wrong. He is proven guilty and d.
vorced. What have you DONE except 10 let
loose upon society young and vigorous
youth to corrupt the morals of every Wo-
man he can? And his excuse Is that ne
cannot marry. Better hang him.
Still worse is the new code in respect TO
divorce on the ground of cruelty; put the
young people be more careful about enter
ing into this sacred relation" Are they
not already careful that many OF the
very best young men do not marry at all !!
And do not even your clergymen sometimes
make mistakes in their choice of a part
ner? Most marriages are between the
young as they should be- and who would
expect them the hot-blooded youth, to be
inerrant? Mistakes must be counted on,
and laws must be made for their correc-
tion. Such laws are in favor of the weaker
sex. Why not be reasonable?
At the risk of prclxity, let me quote a
few words from the greatest author on
marriage and divorce that has ever writ
ten on the subject. Bishop in his com
mentaries on marriage and divorce, sec.
H. VOL II, 4th ed, says: The relation Of
husband and wife can never be made a
mere theoretical affair, mere obstruction
to actual marriage, without inflicting the
deepest injury on the party innocent Of Of
fense, and violating all true public policy
And this is proposition applicable, not in
particular countries and localities only, but
applicable in all places, to the entire race
of man, wherever man is found on the
earth. And when one of the parties is
domiciled in one country, and the other
party is permanently out of the country,
the marriage is a mere theoretical thing;
it is not what the International law, in a
wise contemplation of the interests of as
sociated nations, should favor. 1t is an I'M
pediment to matrimony-not matrimony it
self, as this relation is viewed by the just
and true eye of that genius of interna-
tiOnal glory, peace and virtue, which should
ever preside over the jurisprudence Of ma
tions. 1t is also an impeachment to matrt-
mony-not matrimony as viewed by the
law of nature. And as viewed by the mu-
nicipal law of the country in which the in
| jured person lives If the delictum (crime).
recognized by such law as sufficient for a
divorce. has occurred. 1t is also a mere
impediment to actual marriage. We. have
then the three concurring voices, OF natur-
al law. of international law, Of municipal
laval declaring the marriage to be truly
| mere impeachment to matrimony not
matrimony itself; all otesting against it
the paper marriage), as Injurious to the
| race. to the party forbidden to marry), to
the nation, to the community of nations;
| yet in the face Of all this, we have among
US men learned in the law who tell us
there is a technical reason why the inn
/ pediment must forever remain, as a mon
| ument to human folly, a disgrace to the
name of marriage, and a blot on the law .
The above quotation from Bishops great
| work may be considered as the legal view
| OF this vexed question. When all our
| Christian churches agree on the causes for
| divorce, as they now agree that man
shall have but one wife at time, it Will
| be soon enough for the lawmakers to adopt
| the views of the clerics and enact them
| into law. Let US be reasonable :.-=s-ss =
I CHASE ROYS