The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-02-10
ucurt at the end of three years and
demand . divorce.

d1xnand = divorce.
Leo Brought 20 Book.
Mr. Lee replied that the bill did
contain that provision. DIR. Cannon
said that II Was NOT clear and should
b made clear.
Later In the evening. while Mr.
Lee was speaking. Or. Cannon asked
him IL he was willing - have this
CLAUSE inserted whereupon Mr., Lee
asked Dr. Cannon IL he would with
draw his objection to the bill in case
II WAS so amended. DR.. Cannon re-
piled that he weuld not and after
some crosse firing between these two.
much to the amusement of the audi
cncc Mr. Lee humorousiy sato that
he was Only feeling DR. Cannon's pulse
ard that he was willing TO amend
the bin by inserting the words, In
the discretion Of the court. and IL the
court deem the granting Of a divorce
In the Interest of both parties and
good morals
Speaks for tho Bar
MT, John u. Minor presented TIE
resolution OF the Richmond Bar As
ISOLATION and DIR. Cannon read tnt
resolution of the Methodist preachers
meeting,
Mr.. isaac niggs was the Text
speaker. and said that he was up
iftSEU &c GInEIlbbiE AEt bRN'' " At''7
Of Virginia. except TO ma s~ them
more stringent Mr.. Digs said whcG
he Was a rnenab Der OF the Legislature,
fifteen years ago. an innocent looSius
bin was offered ns' the delegate from
a certain county reducing the pcrioG
of desert!ou as a cause fe" divorce
from i've to three years The hili
was passed. and before the LeEsia-
ture adjourned n rich woman living
In the county from which the bill
originated obtained a divorce from
her husband and married another
man. He believed that tho bin ncw
under discussion was offered in inc
interest Of particular man, and that
II IL were passed the man would soon
take advantage of it 10 secure q
divorce ana marry again.
Mr.. Diggs said that il was q tribute
10 the Bey Association of Richmond
inst n nHd gUTE uTT Trrurr IN uT1T71---
sition TO this bill. when the passage
OF the bill would be In the interest
of lawyers Mr. Lee asked MI piggs
If he thought that the lawyers in
Richmond who did not attend the
meeting Of the Bar Association were
in favor of the bin. only small
minority Of them replied Mr.. Diggs;
but that minority will. IL the bill
is passed, make all the business they
can under its provisions for the di-
Sorce courts
DF. I all%Gn
Rabbi Calisoh made an eloquent
plea for the home The first fami-
lies of Virginia" he said. Il believe
not only stand fer the nrst here but
for tho first an chastity. purity and
honor in the whole American nation,
and ! want them To remain so" Re
counting the Biblical story Of David
and Eriah, he said the assembly
should not listen 70 him who wants
To put the Legislature as the Eriah
In the forefront of the battle. so as
10 bring the Commonwealth 10 polju-
ton and to death.
MIR. Eugene Cessfassle made a legal
argument He said that divorces
have increased threefold in recent
years. This hill. he said would dc.
stroy existing reasons which might
lead to reconciliation
Ny. Massie spoke OF me good
record which Virginia has on the
divorce question and he wanted to
keep II good
MIR. Hamilton Wilcox also made !
strong plea af behalf al the Peters +
burg bar against the passage Of the /.
bill
Davis Makes u Hit. !.
Mr. r. Il. Davis. Of Petersburg. /
was the next speaker and made a
deep impression upon the audience
with the eaTnestness of his remarks, :
What Is the object nf this bil?" I
asked Mr.. Davis. 1T is 10 give the
guilty party tine same remedy at law
and the same right 10 marry again
that the innocent party saag have.
Such law. ne said, would encourage
man separated from his wife to I
take advantage Of his OWN wrong
doing. "Don't let the court have any
discretion in such cases" pleaded Mr. (
Davis. Let the Legislature deaf with /
the case and say what is and what /
tE v.nf far - al
the law TO remain as il il u
He believed that II II ~as amended
as proposed the guilty party could
go into court al the end Of three
years and demand 4 divorce m proof
OF this Mr.. Davis cited case de-
cided by the supreme Court Of Louis
iana---Redmond rs Corona. 80
Southern Reporter--under the very
statute referred TO by Mr. Kemp. The
court had ruled that the guilty party
could demand his divorce at the end
of the two-year period, as prescribed
IN that statute It Is well esta bllshed, !
Mr. Davis contended. that in the Nir-
ginia statutes may means must
Mr. Davis made q strong plea for
the home, and said ne had no pa
.,encn with the doctrine that there
must BE modification Of the divorce
Ian "a keep men and Worse1 pure
that II y man cotld not of himself i've
chastely hc should NOT come to the
Legislature fer help. This pert Of
Mir Davis speech was checrcd ty the
crowd.
Lee -trpiAEded.
Attorney Lee, or tsntAbuTg. waE
the last speaker. and made a Clear
cut argument which provoked fro -
quent outbursts of applause, mLjnl2
from chose standing in the rear of the
hall. Afr Lee said that he had not
come 10 tax to the galleries nor To
let off hot ali. but 10 argue the case
us "a lawyer He had heard some f
strange doctrine since he came. He
had heard Mir. nggs say that man .
3 should not be granted divorce from
"a woman who had led an Immoral
life before their marriage without his
knowledge, but thai d man 50 foolish .
as To marry woman without having /
invest gated her record should he
made u i've with her as punish
rnent for his fo0llshncss
He had heard Or. Cannon say thas
an innott nt man VINO had secured /
a divorce from his wife and had at
terwar ds married another woman (
committed moral ADULTERY.
Dr Cannon intPrrUBted Mr. / ee Tn =