The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-08-03
MARRIAGE and DIVORCE
FROM NEW POINT OF VIEW.


WRITTEN FOR THE SJNI2h .
The fetch of our time is legislative enact
ment.
1t is considered that men should be moro
moral. more temperate, Immediately I party
arises in the State. clamoring for a law to
iegalize lis theories.
But unfortunately progress cannot be OBJ
tanned by an act of Congress. Development
IS a plant Of slow growth. and the only soil
In which it VIII flourish is that Of broad
human culture. Harmonious progress is not
to be secured for the individual or society
by hasty methods. You can make men
hypocEites by rrohihitory laws, but you
cannot make them moral.
There is a demand just now fc- an
amenpnent TO the United States Constitu-
ton that shall make the laws Of marriage
and divorce the same IN al the States OF
the Union. As this suggestion comes uni
formly from those who consider the present
divorce laws too liberal. We may infer that
the proposed national law is t. place the
whole question en- Il narrower basis. rem
dering null and void the laws that have
been passed in a broader spirit. according
to the needs and experiences in certain sec
tons of the sovereign people.
And here let US bear in mind that tho
widest possible law would not make divorce
obligatory on any one, while a restricted
law, on the contrary, void compel many,
living perhaps at one time under more lib
eral laws. to remain in uucongenial rela-
tons.
In Experimental StnEe.
Moreover. as We are still in the expert
mental stage on this question. we are no.
qualified to make a perfect law, that would
work satisfactorily, over SO vast an area
as our boundaries now embrace.
see no evidence in what has been pub
Iished on this question Of late by states
men. ecclesiastics. lawyers and Judges that
any of them have thought sufficiently on
the subject to prepare a well-digested code
or q comprehensive amendment to the ma
tional Constitution.
Some view 1t as a civil contract, though
not governed by the laws Of other con-
tracts; some view it as a religious ordl-
nance. a sacrament; some think 1t a reia-
ton to be regulated by the State, others
should be left wholly TO the individual.
With this wide divergence of opinion
among our leading minds. 1t is quite evil
dent that we are not prepared for a ma
tiCnal law.
Moreover, as woman Is the most impor-
tant factor in the marriage relation. her
Embarrassment is the primal sep in the
sentiment Of the basis of family life. r.
Before public opinion on this question
crystaIlizes into an amendment to the
National Constitution. the wife and mother
must have a voice n the governing power
ana must be IGart IN Urls great SOCIAL
problem in the halls of legislation
There are many advantages in leaving
all these questions, as now. to the States.
Local self-government mora readily per
rnitS Of experiments on mooted questions.
which are the outcome of needs and con-
victions of the community.
The smaller area over which legislation
extends. the more nliable are the la VS.
BY leaving the States free to experiment
in their local affairs. We can Judge of the
working OF different laws under varying
circumstances and thus learn their COM
pdrative merits.
The progress education has achieved In
America IS due 10 Just this fact-that We
have left our system Of public schools IN
the hands of local authorities.
Miscries of the Race.
That he thought Of this while raising q
large family IS plain from his published
letters. in which he deplores and groars
lest his physical Affections be visited on
his children.
Alas! Who can measure the miser1es Of
the race resulting from the impure and un-
holy marriages into which even intelligent
men and women so recklessly enter? 4"
The tone Of society IS indeed low IN TO-
gard to all these matters. We get a much
fairer IDEA of the settled opinions of men
on any given subject from their civil and
laws. their popular literature.
their customs in everyday life, the judy
ments rendered in their courts, the pre-
cepts read in their pulpits. than from their
guarded utterances. when called
on for their well-digested theories.
1t Is folly 10 talk of the s~acredness Of
marriage and mate: nifty while the wife Is
practically regarded as an inferior. a sub
ject. a slave.
Having decided then that companionship
and conscientious parenthood are the only
true grounds for marriage. II the relation
brings out the worst characteristics OF
each party. or II the home atmosphere Is
unwholesome for children. is not the very
'raison d'etre' OF the union wanting and
the marriage practically annulled?
1t cannot be called a holy relation. nor
a desirable one. when love and mutual
are wanting. And let US bear IN
mind one other important fact. that lack
Of sympathy and content in the parents
Indicates radical physical unsuitability,
which results in badly organized offspring.
II then the real object OF marriage Is
It is for the interest of the State,
as well as the individual concerned, to
see that all such pernicious unions be le-
sally dissolved. and inasmuch as incom-
of temper defeats the two great
objects of marriage 1t should be the primal
cause for divorce. .
Copyright. 1902 by the Hearst Syndicate