The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-02-28
DIVORCES.

Utah has a high Cor low. as you may
| look at II from a deprecatory stand
point) record In the matter Of divorces.
The record shows II total of 352 d.
Vorces in this State during the year
1905; the number OF marriages was 396s,
so that the divorces stand to the mar
riages In the ratio Of about one in
eleven. In some counties this ratio
was largely exceeded, as In Carbon
where the marriages werc 76 and the
divorces Is, a ratio OF one I'm five Juab
showed one in eight; Morgan little
less than one In five. Sewer one i'm six,
Summit almost one I'm five, Four coun-
ties-Grand. Iron, Rich and San Juan
had no divorces, and possibly Kane,
which was not reported The large
counties were close to the average: Salt
Lake with 1910 marriages had 179 di-
Yorces, or a fraction over one in nine;
Utah county 20 divorces to 310 mar
riages. or somewhat more than one In
twelve; Weber had SO divorces to All
marriages, or one in thirteen.
The most Of the divorces were grant
ed for -desertion, next TO that came
abuse and cruelty; then unfaithfulness.
And the women file the great majority
of the divorce suits.
We are not of those who think that
divorce should be forbidden, or be con-
fined to any rigorous rule taken from a
religious source or doctrine. And we
fully believe that In most cases where
the parties are present, the two could
by reasonable effort smooth over their
difficulties and get along fairly well to-
gether: but If they cannot, after doing
everything that self respect VIII allow
In the interest of peace and harmony.
then they should not be forced to re-
main together. Even II they separate,
however. or cease the marriage rela-
tion IL does not necessarily follow that
they should be divorced. But every
case should be decided for itself, on Its
own facts and personalities.
We do not believe In ecclesiastical In
reference with the divorce laws. nor
that ministers or priests have any right
to say that they Will not recognize the
laws of the State in which they live. on
this matter. 1t is not a right that any
minister has to say that he Will not
marry a divorced person to a new mate.
unless he is willing to endure the logi-
cal penalty of being denied the right to
otIiciate at weddings. For the same
power which gives him that right, also
sets free a mismated couple, and says
that one or the other Cor both) is eligi-
BILE again to matrlmony. So that the
minister denying the validity of the d.
vorce laws OF the State has no logical
right to of1iciate at the marriage cele-
brating rites which the same laws con.
fer upon him.
1t is certainly true that divorce is too
easily obtained in many cases But It
Is no cure for that to repudIate the
fairly considers the question should put
himself for one moment outside the
law. II the law says that person is
eligible To matrimony. that person is so
eligible. and It is bootless to attempt to |
deny il. and to deny the rites of the
'N'' 'i,Nt7S N~'''i'i' ~ 'a'' 10 W UGLY !
the law. and Uf all ministers should do |
ip To encourage and indeed directly |
foster sexual crime
We deplore as sincerely as any can, |
the lax methods apparent so often I'm |
the courts, where a Judge Will allow n |
large number OF divorces at a single |
sitting, when it is absolutely impossible
that he could have made the examina-