The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-02-10
Ministers and Lawyers
Join in Attack on
Proposed Measure.
MANY PLEAD FOR
{ SANCTITY OF HOME
Debate Before Committee Most
Interesting Of Scssion-"Jack"
Lee Ably Handles Affrma-
tive Side-Applause Lib
cral for Both Con-
tentions.

Seldom indeed has such interest
been displayed at any public hearing
before Legislative committee as was
developed last night at the hearing
on the so-called divorce bill. The Hall
OF the House of Delegates was crowd
cd with an interested audience. which
thoroughly enjoyed, 10 all appear
ances. the arguments and thrusts and
sallies OF both sides. The observer
could distinguish little difference in
the volume OF applause accorded the
speakers.
A number OF men prominent in pub
lie life was on hand. Notable among
these wcrc: Right Rev. Robert A. Glib
son, Bishop OF Virginia, and Or. L. n.
Calisch. Nearly all of the members
of tho Committee on Courts of Jus
tIce were on hand, Chairman Roscweil
pase presiding.
To number of ladies. who had
gathered In Tho gallery, John l.. Lee,
OF Lynchburg. who appeared for the
bill, said few words while also ad-
dressing the chair. He said he pre-
sumed they Rad been misinformed as
TO the purport of the meeting, and
that the subject TO be discussed was
one which they should not hear. This
caused a general exodus of the sex.
not one remaining.
For Better Morals.
Time being divided into an hour to
each side, which was later increased In
both cases, SIR. Lee introduced S. Y.
Kemp. of Lynchburg. who was the first
speaker. Mr.. Kemp said that unless
the committee felt that the proposed
law was promo.ive OF good morals and
better than the present statute. they
should refuse It's endorsement
The object of dyorses, he argued.
is not primarily TO vindieate the in
nocent party nor % punish the wrong
doer. II is to promote good morals.
He contended that the court ought TO
gay what Is the best thing to be done.
+ Attention was called by Mr.. Kemp TO
the fact that courts are reluctant to
grant divorces from bed and board at
all, because 1t is recognized that It is
dangerous to society to have hugs
band without wife or wife with !.
out husband. AS a usual thing. he
understood. when divorce cases are be-
fore the House Of Lords in England,
that body strikes out the inhibition
against remarr!age as matter Of
course. AS a result OF tho difficulty
and expense of getting dicorces in
Grea. Britain, he said he was inform
ed. illegitimacy Is greater there than
in any other civilized country. The
usual divorce there is from bed and
toard.
In Other Stutcs.
Statutes of other States. including
Louisiana, California and Michigan.
We're cited TO show that the policy was
being pursued OF giving either party
the right to show his or her cause TO
the court. In California tho court may
make a. divorce from bed and board
an absolute divorce OF Its own motion,
without application. 1t was argued
that this was done because the courts
know better what ought to be done
than does either party interested. In
a Michigan case 1t was held that this
was not done to meet the desire of
the parties. but as matter Of public
policy.
Mr.. Kemp concluding, resolutions
wcro presented against the bill from
the mass meeting at tho Young Mems
Christian Association, from the Pres
/. byterian ministers, from the Episcopal
ministers of Richmond, Norfolk and
J Alexandria and from the ministers OF
Fredericksburg and Charlottesville.
DR.. S. c., Hatcher was in charge of
the opposition. He first introduced DR..
James Cannon, Jr.
Increase in Divorces.
Or. Cannon said that the bill was an
I attack on one OF the Foundation pill
lars of society. our civilization" he
said, resting upon the home Divorce,
In the opinion OF most people, is the
greatest enemy of the home
He called attention TO the fact that
the churches believe that there should
be only certain causes for divorce, II
true. he argued. as Is stated. that
there is one divorce for every thirty
four marriages, the time has come to
weigh every proposed change in the
divorce laws with the utmost care.
\ The demand for such a change ought
to be shown, and he asked where was
tlc> demand for a change. I'VE have
divided time here Tonight. but With
4 whom M Between the people Of Nir-
Einta and sthese two gentlemen"-in-
dicatins Messrs. Kemp and Lee.
The only reason given by Mr.. Kemp.
he said. was the good of society. III
they can prove that the good OF So
c!ety Is involved. then they have
proved their CASE He declared that
the man who is divorced for adultery
and remarries Is "a l-moral adulterer.
The logic OF Mr. Kenp's position was,
he said. that If a party is not married
1t is almost impossible for him or
hcr to refrain from crime. He con-
tended that It is safer to hold to the
effects Of tho laws we have now rathe er
than to pass a new one and wait for
the Supreme Court to tell us exactly
what 1t means. He believed that there
was no demand for the proposed law,
and that 1t would encourage divorce,
Resolutions OF bar.
Jonn B. Minor presented the reso-
lutions of the Richmond Bar Associa-
tion against the BILL Flo said he be-
lieved the courts should not exercise
the rights they now have to allow
parties who have been divorced for
adultery to remarry. In reply to a
question from Mr.. Lee as to whethe,
he agreed with his distinguished
father, Of 1io Unlversity Of Virginia
that q person married and yet I'M
----- 1clnn inllad m gyacnnd- -pa rnI IA-.---,