The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-02-07
THE DIVORCE BILL.


THE DIVORCE BILL.
| A great deal of nonsense has been
| talked about the proposed amendment
to the divorce law of Virginia, and a
| great many persons whose judgment
| Is ordinarily reliable have been quite
| msled as to its meaning. We note
! that the esteemed News Leader, in its
issue of Saturday, goes SO far as to
| say that under the amendment. man
could desert his wife without cause
for n period of three years, and then
come into court and by petition set up
his own wrongful action and dcsertion
/ as good reason for granting him abso-
lutte divorce" If the amendment au-
thorzed any such doings as this, 1T
| would be all that the News Leader
says of it and more. but we do not find
| the contrary, the bill stipulates that
when such u man as the News Leader
| describes comes into court. his petit
tion for n divorce shall be granted
only upon production of satisfactory
evidence" A mans desertlon Of his
wife Is not satisfactory evidence that
he is entitled to claim divorce from
her, and there is not word in this
bill which makes 1t so.
Unless our understanding is entirely
at fault. the sole effect of this bill is
to give the right Of entry to court to
the party who. IN the proceedings for
legal separation. was adjudged in the
wrong. Having gained admission to
| further use of the provisions OF this
bill There is nothing in it which he
can point to in support of his petition.
The bill creates no new grounds for
| divorce Having gained the ear of the
court---a privilege now denied him
the petitioner must rely upon the stat
utory grounds now existing to con-
vince the Judge that he is entitled to
| have his plea granted. If he cannot
J point to such grounds this bill cannot
| help him in the least, and he might as
well have saved himself the trouble of
| going into court.
The whole question of the desirable
ness of the amendment Is simply the
question whether the so-called guilty
party - sometimes only technically
guilty-should ever have the right of
entry to court for a hearing on his
case. Possibly there Is no general need
In, oil y, II.
But 1t is worth pointing out that this
is almost the only situation known to
law in which anybody at any time
and under any circumstances Is de-
MED the right of appeal to court. The
privilege is freely accorded and recog-
nized everywhere else And the guilty
party in the preliminary divorce pro-
ceedings Is not always really SO. a
husband who leaves his wife for cause
is not really the guilty one of the pair,
though IL he keeps silent. he becomes
technically guilty. A man who dis
covers the unfaithfulness of his wife
may decide to leave her rather than
brand her in the courts-perhaps for
VIC SAM VI IL Cilllu. 1edTS pass, inc
child dies: the wife. perhaps, sinks
lower and lower; and the aggrieved
husband, under the changed conditions.
may desire to come into court and APP
ply for an absolute divorce from her.
Under the present statute he cannot
do so, He will not be admitted to
court, because he originally put him
self legally in the wrong by desertion.
This amendment confers that right
upon him. and confers nothing more.
Perhaps such cases are not at all
common. Perhaps there is no need of
a special amendment to cover them.
But to describe such an amendment as
monstrous and abominable seems to
us wholly unreasonable and entirely
unjust to the legislative committee and
the Senate, which have considered and
adopted it. Unnecessary 1t may be;
unwise, conceivably; but, since no di-
vorce can be granted under it without
satisfaction of the Judge upon grounds
already authorized, we do not see
how it can be described as dangerous
without n sharp and gratuitous rehcc-
ton upon the integrity of our courts.
---------:=--.
In his message to the City Council
Of Baltimore Mayor Mahool notes that
"the city has caught Il lot of COM
mon, degraded thieves" What has be-