The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-01-19
DIVORCE MEASURES
The Provisions of the
Several Bills Outlined
and Distinguished.

and Distinguished.
| The advocates Of a stricter divorce
/ law were much encouraged yesterday
by expressions of changed opinion on
the part of several members of the
| Ell .gisature who had hitherto been in
cllned to oppose any change of the
present statues on the subject tending
to do away with. abandonment as
cause for dissolviug the bonds Of
matrimony. This brighter outlook was
assuredly produced by the meeting on
Tuesday of the committees of the sew
! ieral churches and the hearing accord
| ed TO them by the Judiciary Commit
tee of the House. The questions at
/ issue as we'll as the sentiment of the
/ people had been more or less cague
prior to the hearing before the COM
mittee The positive tone Of the cleri-
gal speakers, however, the high and
| Yet reasonable grounds taken by them
| and the fact that they represented
what is practically the undivided SEN
timent OF the membersh of the
| Christian denominations throughout
/ the State had q deep effect on the
members.
When the divorce matter come up
again before the House Committee.
| however, on the 25th there will GER
/
| il is and to modify the demands made
| by the churches for the repeal of late
legislation and the abolition of The
Ipresent dist notion made IN the scrip
I tural couse'' between the man and the
| woman to the prejudice of the lat
tier.
There are now before the House
four divorce measures and it IS un-
| derstood that others will be intro
/ Il, VfttfIn SYar lan faN
| The first of these is that Of Mr..
! Stewart, of Harnett, which repeals all
| laws passed since the Code of 1883.
| The second is that OF Mr.. MuInch. OF
Mccklenburg, which is as follows,
| Marriage may be dissolved and the
! parties thereto divorced from the
| bonds of natrimonv, on application
Of The part injured, made as by law
provided in the following cases ana
none other:
Sec. l. If either party shall COM
nit adultery. Sec. ,. IF either party
| at the time of the marriage was and
| still Is naturally impotent. Sec. 3. II
| the wife ut the time Of the marriage
! b.. pregnant and the husband be iGnn-
| rant Of the fact of such pregnancy and
! DE not the father OF the child With
| which the wife was pregnant at the
| time of the marriage. Sec. 4. All
| laws and clauses of laws in conflict
with this act are hereby repealed.
This act to take effect from and
| after its passage.
II will be observed that the differ
| ence between the bills of Mr.. Stewar.
| and Mr.. McN.nch is simply in the
change of the first two sections Of the
! code making an act of adultery on
the part of either husband or vile q
cause Of divorce. Under the code as
| il now stands, while q single act on
| the part OF the wife is a cause of d.
yorce, the husband to be liable 20 SUIT
must leave the wife and live in un-
| faithfulness with another woman
| Ctherw. Sc Mr. McNinch's bill is iden-
| tical with the provisions now obtain
! III in the code.
| The other two bills are, one spe-
cietl, or rather a general act designed
to meet a special case which extends
the time limit for divorces for deser-
ton, and the other a general act Whlch
provides as Il cause for divorce aban-
ionment for the term of five years.
In speaking with one Of the most
prominent movers in the church agl-
tation OF the subject yesterday, he
| rointed out the fact that none of the
bills proposed had yet taken notice
of an act passed subsequently To the
code making Z cause of divorce per-
sistent refusal on the part of the wife
| fOr one year 10 CDilSuIiIiidtc bHC itiell
rage That provision, stated this gem
| tlenlan would in ali probability be in
cuded in the provisions of any law
which would pass the legislature, the
idea beirg that It took cCgrizance Of
the condition as a matter which would
practically annul the marriage and wGs
! not broadly considered, really cause
OF divorce.
IKE fight therefore will be in the end
I a.. ~,E Of fnx ~
or Mr.. McNinch, as the committee may
| decide, and the bill of Mir. Alley, Of
/ Jackson, creating abandonment for
! i've years az q cause of divorce.
At the meeting Of the church rep
resentatives held at the church dt the
| Good Chepherd prior TO the committee
meeting on Tuesday there was a dis
| position on the part Of several IN" nj.
| berS of the convention 20 ask the
Legislature to pass n provision which
would punish the guilty party to
| divorce by refusing the right OF re-
| marriage. but that proposition whlle
| still believed in by many OF the
church men will not be pressed for
! passage, as it is realised that IT would
| stand Little chance of enactment.
From expressed sentiment yesterday
ii. seemed that either the McNirch or
thc stewart measure would get the
recon OF the committee and
| pass the Housa. with the amendment
| to either including the subsequently
lenacted clause referred 10 above.
A