The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-01-26
An Executive Session.

ill-health by reason Of her marriage
ties
An Executive Session.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Justice s
remarks. the committee on motion
! went into executive session for the
considera ton of the several bills which
were pending. The motion for the
| executive session was opposed and was
! carried ny only a small majority.
After 1ll except the committee had
retired the consideration of Mr. Me-
! Ninch's bill repeating sections / and
| of the Code of 1888 and substituting
in lieu thereof the one cause of un-
laithfulness as Il cause OF divorce
whether the husband or wife is guilty,
was first taken up.
Mr.. McNinch spoke at length on the
| bin. He attacked Us unfair and unjust
| The present provision which discrimi-
| mates in favor of the husband and
contendei strongly for the passage OF
| ONLY such laws as We're based upon
the Biblical reasons of divorce or
| which contemplated such matters as
! did in effect constitute fraud upon
the marriage relation or were such rs
to render the contract a nullity alb mi
ito Il am dreadfully in earnest rs
TO this matter" declared Mr.. McNinch;
! II do not care whether or not it shall
seem that this provision making I'M
| faithfulnpss bear alike on either party
shan prevent unfaithfulness or not.
That is not the point with me: it Will
| remove the sanction of the law from
,Infaithfulness which is now clearly
implied i'm The fact that the Code rec
ognizes unfaithfulness on the part Of
! the husband when it fails TO provide
| the same punishment for him that ii
| does for the wife" He referred TO
the analogy existing between the oper-
alton of the present law in this state
and the polygamous practices of the
| Mormons; as matters stood at present,
| said he. the distinction was decidedly
| in favor of the Mormons. There n wife
knew that she might ut any time be
supplantad in the affections of her
| husband; she had no reason to think
| this in North Carolina. but the law
makes her bear the yoke of the Illegal
lpractices of ner husband and saffer
| without remedy for the humiliation
which the law does not directly sane
| ZION, but does sanction in practice. His
intent was 10 have the law do what
! is right and to tend to raise the peo-
! pie Of the State TO a higher social
! level.
Nr. Fowler, of Sampson, came into
/ the discussion with speech of some
| minutes duration. in which he took
! the ground that the repeal of the
|
| abandonment would be an incentive to
! immortality He also strenuously OPP
! posed the repeal of the distinction be-
tween man and wife as TO the matter
! of infideliN
Mr.. Fcimster advocated the Me-
/ Ninch bill on the ground of the pa
thence and the forgiving spirit of Wo
| man, which said he would prevent the
! Objectionable developments which
| would appear TO be in danger Of aris-
| ing from look at the face of the
| bill.
Mr.. Williams also spoke in favor of
| the McNinch bill, Judge Graham of
that introduced by Mr.. Stewart, and
| Mr.. Biggs in opposition To the laws
which made the causes of divorce too
/ few and too severe in their operation.
He had not heard of any great senti-
| ment said Mr. Biggs, in favor of the
| law such as thar introduced by Mr.
| McNinch.
/ Mr.. McNinch replied 10 this that his
| bill represented the sentiment OF the
! four chHrchcs whose delegates had re-
Gently met in the city and some of
whom had spoken before the commit
tee.
A voice: rs that the sentiment of
| the churches or is it merely the SEN
| timent Of their Representatives? -
! There Was further discussion in
| which Messrs. Stewart, Murphy OF
! Rowan. and McNinch participated, as
| did Judge Graham. who feared that
/ the McNiuch bin would provide an
! easy method of cOlllusion between hus-
| band ana wife.
Said Murphy, of Rowan. to Nc
! Ninch
Which 4ty brings the most ac-
| tons on the ground of abandonment
| the man or the woman"
A1cNinch: THE man
| Murphy: MY observation is differ
ent"
| Chairman Wmborre made a state
ment OF his position which was in ef-
! feet that the laws regarding abandon
ment which We're termed loose laws
were not really so in his opinion, but
We're simply laws which gave TO the
| woman certain rights of protection
against cruel men. He was not in IA
! vor of the McNinch bill. The opera
| ton OF that measure would really be
! TO give all the advantage TO the hus-
| band. Il, for one, am not willing.
| said he ITO east q vote To enact Il
| law giving the husband all the pro-
! lection and which does not give pro-
lection to the women"
Mr.. Ehringhaus of Pasquotank,
stated that he was for women'S rights
and would therefore support the Nc
| Ninch bill.
Mr.. Fowler offered an amendment
that the law should be so changed as
to make repeated acts of unfaithfu-
ness on the part of the husband Il
cause of divorce.
When the McNinch measure came
to q vote, it failed OF endorsement by
q vote Of Il to II, Mr. McNinch stat
ing that he would reserve the right
TO fight for the measure on the floor.
The next section on which vote
was taken was that of the refusal OF
the wife to permit a contamination of
the marriage. This provision passed
by vote of Il To II, but was at once
reconsidered and failed to be en-
dorSed.
The law making an Indictment for a
felony and the fight of the husband
from the State cause of divorce was
stricken out.
The matter of abandonment as a
cause came UP and resulted i'm consid-
ersbly more discussion. Mr.. Alley
had a bin before the House making
the term of abandonment necessary
for the basins of an action for divorce
five years. Amendments were offered
To keep the term two years and TO pro-
EiGed that in no case should a 0i-