The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-02-10
EDITORIAL
Motive Back of Divorce Bill.

& Attorneys For An Individual
/ There was an extraordinary scene in the chambe
q of the House OF Delegates Wednesday night. Their
was hearing on the bill to amend the divorce law
III Virginia that either party to a divorce iron
Nd and board, after the space of three years, coulf
lI 7ply TO the court for absolute divorce. Ih
-sent law gives the right to the injured part!
& me. The amendment desired would place TIL
3 guilty and the injured party on exactly the SAINT
j footirg before the court.
In opposition to the change in the law there wer
n1emorais from the meetings OF ministers OF tn
various denominations in the city OF Richmond
d Committees were present from the Presbyterians
Methodists, Baptists, Epscopaans, and from meet
ing of citizens Of Richmond. and the Jewish rabt
also spoke kilograms read from several cit
les OF the State opposing the bill Protests agains
the passage of the bill were presented from the Ba
II Associations of Richmond and of Petersburg
7 Representatives of the moral sentiment OF Virgins
were lined up insisting that nothing should be don
that even limited at making it easier to secure di
yorceS in Virginia, and certainty nothing should b
Il done that would suggest plan by which in three
years an absolute divorce could be secured by thos
4 who were anxious for new "aflinites" with a lega
sanction,
In favor of the change in the law, there appeared
not single representative OF any religious or lega
association. No resolutions from leading citizens
were read demanding the change in the interests o
decency and justice. No kilograms were read APP
proving the passage of the bill. The only persons
who appeared in favor of the bill. either by rcsou
tons or by representatives, two attorneys o
the city of Lynchburg. These gentlemen insisted
that the amendment desired would bc for the bes
interests of society. They based their plea for tht
change on the contention that men or women who
were married and yet not married, WHO had no wife
or husband, and were forbidden by law to have one
were a menace to society, for 1t was certain that
they could not live pure lives, and it argued tha
the State should come to the of such persons
and amend the law so that they could contract an
alliance for the satisfaction of appetite under the
forms of law. The logic of the argument advanced
was that no matter how grieVously man might
offend there should be no bar remarriage because
If bar be erected the guilty party would commit
adultery, and he must be prevented from SO doing by
giving the sanction OF the law TO his moral adultery
% such an argument there can be but one reply.
law must discriminate between the innocent
sthe guilty. If the man who has violated the
marriage contract grossly that his wife must
cure separation or even divorce, can have the
right by law to remarry at pleasure and be recog-
nized by the law OF the land as living decent vir
tuous life, simply because he has made another mar
riage contract then whenever such tire of their
present wives, the law will tell them that if they will
commit adultery, make it impossible for their
wives to live with them in three years time they can
secure a divorce ana enter into another contract
] and live with another Noman, and this under the
sanction of the law. In short, the law is invoked
70 step in and to put the stamp Of its approval on
adultery, to leealize adultery
81 The attorneys presented several illustrations of
Imaginary Of injustice which might be wrought
by the present law But when pressed to state how
many cases OF injured persons were demanding the
passage of this amendment, the leading attorney
bluntly declared that he was not working for this
amendment for his health" that he was paid for
his services 1t was notable that the attorney did
not declare in reply that he paid to obtain this
change in order to right great wrong to inno-
cent party. Had he been there to represent an
innocent party he would doubtless have brought out
the details OF the and pictured in pathetic
terms the injustice 10 his client. But his silence
this point and the circumstances surrounding the
case justify the public in believing that the object
aof this amendment is 10 enable guilty party in a
divorce suit to secure absolute divorce that he
may remarry again.
The issue is simple and clear. Will the General
Assembly Of Virginia amend the divorce law of the
Commonwealth against the protest of the ministry
and the bar upon the application OF two gentlemen,
who finally admitted that they attorneys paid
by individual TO secure the change and that in
dividual apparently the guilty party in the case.
4s5A tiidA tI1c 9k ldS DEeli dSuc ana feal
motive for their effort to change the law is manifest
will the General Assembly allow itself TO be made
the instrument for the accomplishment of this pur-
pose, The debate was Illuminating in showing the
laxness and imperfection OF the law it stands
and its present mperfections were strongly urged
as plea for additional impcrfccti0n But the
people OF Virginia in mood to yield to the
clamor OF men and women who want legal sanction
for their adultery.
Gentlemen Of the General Assembly, which will
heGH he
aroused moral sentiments of Virginia or the paid
attorneys for an individual?
The Tariff Hoodoo