New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-10-24
FEW DIVORCES IN CANADA.

Bishop Sweatman. of Montreal. made some
what moderate statement, but described most
remarkable situation with regard 10 divorce in
Canada. He said:
You see we can hardly be said to have
divorce evil in Canada. Our laws are 30 strin-
divorce on any ground. In the hrst place the
only ground recognized by the Canadian law as
cause for absolute divorce is adultery proved
A second clause in the law permits remarriaGe
Of the innocent party at the option of the Sen
ate. All applications for divorce must be made
to the Senate the legal fees alone amounting to
81 200 As a result of this stringent law, we
have had in Canada during the last twelve years
an average of about three and one-half divorces
q year In 1882 a law was enacted permitting
man TO marry his deceased wife's sister.
The Episcopal Church in Canada has adopted
the canons forbidding marriage within the for
hidden degrees of kindred. and no rernarriaSe
even of the innocent party is permitted by the
Church. / maintain of course, that this must
remain the rule of Episcopal clergymen in Can
ada at least until further ecclesiastical legisla-
ton is enacted ClerEymen renlarrying divorced
persons liable to Censure.
In reply to a question Bishop Sweatman said
that the course to be pursued with regard 10
excluding from communion remarked divorced
persons had not been determined. He added
that unfortunately. many Canadians sought
divorce in the States where the laws were
more lax and the expenses much smaller. He
also said that there were some deviatiOns from
the Canadian law as he had outlined it in the
Maritime Provinces.
DIR. MACKAY-sMITH CONSERVATIVE
Bishop Mackay-Smith. Coadjutor OF Penn
sylvania holds to the conservative view. He
said:
At our last convention it was proposed to
strengthen the present law with regard 70 di-
vorce that law permitting the remar-
riage OF the innocent party when adultery Is
but the motion was lost There appears, however
to have been a strengthening of the ConserVa-
tive party, and it would be difficult To predict
at this time the course of the Episcopal Church
in the future For myself / voted last year
for the law II stands. Our Lord Himself
made the one exception. and our canon is in
accordance with His exception. OF course. you
understand that any vote taken at this confer
ence would not be binding in any quarter This
is a voluntary body and not an official one, and
an expression Of opinion by 1t would have
weight only so far it's moral influence went.
Bishop Mcvickar of Rhode Island stands
among the comparatively few who regard the
present canon of the Episcopal Church as suf-
ficiently perfect to need no further revision. He
said:
7 would hold to the II stands. [
would not seek 10 improve upon the written
word TO attain ideal condition in very
unideal society. nor would ! impose upon an in
nocent person the severe condition OF living
with an uufaithful wife husband or the dan
gerous condition of spending the remainder OF
his or her life in celibaCy because of sin for
which that person was In no way TO blame
FOR MORE STRINGENT LAWS.
Bishop Whitehead Of Pittsburg spoke briefly
He said
We require more stringent legislation on tho
divorce question, canonical as we'll national.
When the opportunity presents itself I shall
vote for It. We getting into serious dim
culties both with clergymen who marry d.
vorCed persons themselves and with those who
perform marriage service between persons
one both of whom have already a wife or nus
band living.
Bishop Edward Robert Atwell Of West Mis-
souri, said:
I am heartily in favor of uniform drrorca
laws but | think IL Will have 10 ba accor,,
nlished by united action on the part OF tba So
eral States There has been q pronoettioD -
bring the matter before Congress for its nction
hut do not believe Congress has constituffoYai
AUTHORITY to handle this subject. should co.
a recommendation by this conferences for mn
form State legislation on the subject or divr,.cs
The condition OF society. especially In the W.
NAV be described as dreadful on account ~ ~
lnck OF uniform divorce laws. 4 am I'm favor -
forhidding our clergy 10 marry divorced nor
son when the other party Is living.
Bishop William Crane Gray of Southern Flor-
ida said:
believe most thoroughly that our blessed
Lord taught that His followers. While ,bc,,
might be separated FOR time " necessary ana
for cause should not marry again while hoth
parties were living. I think that the marriage
service ia our Church. where each pledges IN
the other 10 he faithful "till death do part :.
expresses the teaching OF our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ. and that no marriages I'm