The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-02-16


divorce evil was largely the result of
the abandonment feature of the pres
ent law and the one proposed by the
committee. Eliminate that feature,
and there would be very little differ
ence in the bills, and he hoped the
House would vote down the abandon
ment cause.
Mr.. Fowler in advocating the aban-
donment clause, said that he had
never known a case in which it had
been abused and he had made ell
quiries among members of the Lesis-
lature since coming here and of the
legal profession generally before, and
had found but one man who had ever
heard of an abuse of the law. He de-
clared that the McNinch bill should
be entitled a bill to deny meritorious
women from securing release from
hoggish husbands, for said ,he, ninety
nine out of hundred men who aban-
don their wives are really living in
adultery with other women. but it
Is impossible for wives, especially Il
they be poor, as they generally are,
to prove the adultery, so that the
abandonment clause is really not such
n hugaboo after all.
Mr.. Ally advocating the abandon
ment clause. said that the evil had
resulted from the loose way of allow
ing proof from the plaintiff alone
but his bill gave the judge the power
to refuse a divorce, and the question
Of evidence had been made much
more difficult to get a divorce.
Judge Graham gave an interesting
history of divorce laws in North Car
DINA. beginning with 1919 and COM
ing to the present. He strongly OPP
posed the abandonment clause. saying
that a tacid admission of its mis-
chievous effects WAS embraced in
every statute passed since 1893. when
the provision was inherited that the
act should only apply. to cases oc-
curing before the passage of the act
He said the provision of the proposed
law giving the judge the power to
refuse q divorce for abandonment if
he considered the case an improper
one for divorce was not worth the
ink it took to write ii, because judges
had no time to act as detectives and
would not be able to know the facts.
Since 1898 there have been seven or
eight thousand divorces granted in
North Carolina and thus breaking up
the sanctity of the home and the mar
riage tie is unlooSing the very bonds
Of government. He concluded by urg-
ing the return to the divorce law of
the Code of 1883.
Mr.. Mitchell quoted from Governor
kycock, President Roosevelt and Glad
stone on tho evils of lax divorce laws
and advocated return to the law OF
the Code of 1888
Recurring 10 Roman history he
showed that the decline of its power
and prestige could be gagged by its
decay in morals. for In its palmy days
divorce laws were strict and the fam,
lily hearth was sacred, but Whei.
Rome fell her laws on divorce had be-
Pf. nd T. M, "a Mt
This question is a great moral one, in
which no politics have entered, and,
III this new dawn of a new civilization,
let us begin it right. Mr.. Mitchell sew
eral times became very eloquent, evok-
ing rounds of applause.
At the conclusion of his speech Mr..
NcNinch called the previous question.
The first vote was taken on the
Glenn amendment 10 the McEinch bin.
containing the law of the Code with an
abandonment clause as follows:
90 If either party shall wilfuliy
and without cause abandon the other
aud live separate and apart from the
other for a period of two years, the
injured party shall be entitled TO di-
vorce; but IN all actions for divorce
upon this ground it shall be alleged
and proved on tho trial that the COM
plainant has been IL bona lide resident
of this State for five years inmediate-
~ preceding the commencement of the
action: Provided, that after the jury
have found the issue or issues in favor
of the plaintiff, it shall be the duty
Of the judge presiding at the trial, TO
carefully inquire into the facts ana
circumstances of the case, and 1t h
shall be of the opinion that the di-
lorce, for any cause, should mot be
granted, he may. in the exercise of his
discretion, set the verdict aside and
decline - grant the divorce; and III
no case shall he render a decree of
divorce upon the unsupported testi-
mony of the plaintiff: Provided fur
Their, that nothing contained in this &C,
shall be construed to apply TO existing
actions.
The amendment was defeated by a
vote of 6S to 70
Ayes-Messrs. Alley, Buchanan Co.
field, Fowler, Glenn, Grant Harrison,
Holbrook, Joyner, Kooncc, MeekinS,
Murphy. of Buncombe; Mcfarland,
Perry, PinniX, Pitt, Rector, Roberts,
Shipman, Stickley, Turner. Nestai,
Waddill, Williams, Woodland, of VIII
sons.
Nocs-Mcssrs. Alexander, Andrews.
Ballard, Barco, Biggs, Bowman, Britt,
Canady, Cunningham. Daniel, David
wood; Dobson. Ehringhaus, Feimster,
Fisher, Flemmng, Freeman, Gordon,
of Guilford; Gordon. of stokes; Cow
er, Graham, of Alamance; Graham, OF
Granville; Graham, of Lincoln; Hall,
Hawkins, Harris Hasten, Halves,
Henry, HolloWell, Humphreys, Hutch
son, Jones. Mitchell, Morphew, Nc
Gill. McNinch, Mcqueen, owens,
Powers. Eedwinc, Rives, Robertson,
Ryburn, Simpson, of Gates; Simpson,
of Union: Sledge. Stewart. Stokes.
Taylor. of Vance; Thaggard, Turling
ton, UzzelI. Wade. Warburton, War
ren, Webb, West of Cherokee, White,
Winbornc, Woodland, of Pamlico.-63.
The vote was then taken on the
McNinch bill. and it prevailed by the
following vote:
Ayes.--Messrs. Alexander. Andrews.
Ballard. Barco. Biggs. Bowman, Britt,
Byrd. Campbell. Canady, Cunningham,
Daniel. Davidson. Davis. of Burke,
Ehringhaus. E,theridge. Fcimstcr.
Fisher, F,lemming, Freeman. Frizzelle.
Glenn. Gordon. of Guilford, Gordon.
OF stokes, Cover, Graham. of Ala
nance. Graham, Of Lincoln. Hall.
Harris, Hasten, Halves. HolloweH,
Humphreys. Jones. Mitchell. McGill.