The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1909-01-09
STRIKES DIVORCE.
A Catholic Judge Renders An Opinion
on the Evil.

! An opinion Of great interest to Cath
c;ics and all students of American So
cial order was last week rendered by
| Hon. John Gibbons, Judge Of the Cir
cult Court Of Cook county. Judge Glib
hons is not only a distinguished Cath
tlo- as we'll Some of his works are
Tenure and Toll or the Rights and
j Wrongs of Capital and Labor" "Crimi-
nal Reports five volumes, THE Law
of Negligence" 1.-TWO volumes), Leo
lures and Essays" Unconstitutional
Law" and various other publications
of similar character. His holding in
the divorce suit of Edward L. Schrae-
der VS.. Elizabeth Schroeder has en-
cited much comment in Chicago legal
circles because of its firm and distinct
position with regard to the divorce
evil.
| The facts in the case Of Schraeder Va.
Sohraeder briefly are these: The stat
utes of Illinois prohibit the remarriage
Of divorces within one year from tina
tho time the decree is granted, and de-
clare that every person violating that
section shall be punished by i1nprison-
nlent in the penitentary not less than
vne nor more than three years, and
thai said marriage shall be held void.
The Shraeders defled the law and mar
ried within eight days after the lady
band brought suit praying for the an
rulment Of the marriage on the ground
that she was incapable of entering 'ir-
to marriage contract. In his decis-
ion Judge Gibbons says, in part:
1t may be stated as general rule
Of law, subject to some exceptions that
contract Of marriage entered into by
Parties capable of contracting, which
is valid under the laws Of the state or
country whore made is legal every
where. Had the parties remained be-
You'd the jurisdiction Of this state, their
marriage would probably be held valid
in every state and country whose laws
or public policy would not be thereby
yirated.
Although + grant hundreds OF d.
vorces annually in obedience to the
statute law of this state, l nevertheless
believe that divorces should not be al
lowed except, possibly, for one cause,
and this I think should be the policy
Of the state, whether viewed from the
standpoint of divine or human law.
Whom Adam and Eve entered into
the bans Of Holy Matrimony before
God Himself, it was proclaimed in the
morning Of the world: Wherefore a
man shall leave father and mother, and
shall cleava to his wife; and they
s''all be two in one flesh" And Christ
speaking on the same subject, declared.
"EIave you not read that He who made
l'sn from the beginning made them
lnale and female; for this cause shall
a man leave father and mother and shall
cleave to his wife,and the two shall
BE- one flesh. Wherefore now they are
not two but one flesh. whereupon the
Pharisees said to him, Did not Moses
command to give her Bill of Divorce,
and put her away? And Christ answer
ed. because Moses from tho hardness
of Your heart suffered you to put away
Int ho -
was not so.' Which means that before
the Mosaic law there was no granting
Of divorces. and under the Mosaic law
one cause for divorce was recognized,
and that only, as a matter OF necessity
to prevent the guilty party from being
put to death. To the fact that there
are so few divorces among the Jews,
largely may be attributed the stability
or the Jewish home and integrity Of
the Jewish family.
Examined from the standpoint OF hui
man law, I maintain that marriage is
more than civil contract--that it is
a status, and therefore should be in
S,IFn@oluDle, DtCduSe IL dHnuleO tie par
ties cannot be placed in Status auo",
and a money judgment will seldom, If
ever, make whole the injured party.
II there are children born in the
marriage, the faint of the divorced par
ents will follow them for several gen.
erations, and if there be no children,
the parties themselves, although legal
ly free, become social pariahs. So that
examined from either viewpoint there
should be no dissolution of the mar
rage. But in the judgment Of our law
givers. it has been the policy OF this
state to provide many causes for d.
vorce, and in order to minimize as
much is possible the evil consequences
thereof, I recommended, in my report
of 1901, to the Supreme Court Of IL
Enois, the enactment of statute, sim
illl to the one now under consideration
1 based my advocacy Of that statute