The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-08-31
BUNGLING MARRIAGE.


 Three young persons, two married, one unmarried, have recently be- come involved in a divorce scandal. One is a novelist, one is a poet and one is an actress in embryo. The story is quite of the usual character None of the details are absent. The novelist names the poet correspon- dent, and the poet says he doesn't know if he will marry the lady, or rot. These persons have arrived at no new or original result, but they talk as if their experience were un- usual The woman says that she supposes she must experience mar tyrdom for the sake of the future and the men are equally lofty in their statements, assertions and pre- tensions.
 So true is it that the noisy pre- tense of signs and wonders will take the place of them, that some very able editors have been persuaded into the belief that authors of this little drama have presented society with something new, which is not the case, unless their failure to be ashamed of a situation which dis tresses. most people constitutes a novelty.
 Society does not contemplate that all marriages will be successful. Con- necticut for instance sets up several causes, constitution legal failure of marriage, as desertion, intemper- ance, corporal fmbeciI;ty, conviction of. felony and adultery.
 Only North Carolina, of all the states, provides no divorce. The ugly ground is cause for divorce by civil process practically through out the civilized world. It is also made a crime throughout the world for a man and a woman to create marriage.
 The state, taking ground less lofty than the church, does yet declare that marriage Is a contract. It is the experience of mankind that un- til contracts are dissolved, they shall have binding force, if they are just and fair contracts. Apparently Mr. Sinclair believes that his wife and Poet Kemp, needed the obligation If contract little for his ground of di- vorce implies his belief that there was a complete failure to observe one of the most fundamental rules of marital obligation.
 But these people are not martyrs. They have simply made a failure of marriage, under circumstances speak ing little for their self-restraint, their sense Of obligation to contract to du ty and of decency to society. They are not. blazing a new trail. They are teaching the state no new les son. The state has been familiar with, such cases as theirs for centur- ies, and has provided fully for such cases.
 Neither is there anything new in their assent to the situation in which they find themselves. Not all hus- bands are Othellos. The law, n Connecticut at least, and in most oth- CT states, expects a certain amount of complaisance in such cases, and has provided that collision shall be a ground for denying the divorce. The attitude which Mir. and Mrs. Sinclair present would cause a Connecticut court to throw their action out bod lily.
 MT. and Mrs. Sinclair and poet Kemp are doing an old thing in an old way. Their complete ignorance of their own q misfortune creates amusement, sorrow. Or contempt. ac- cording to the character of the in- dividual who scrutinizes their con- duct
 Suppose 1t is true that some mar riages are failures. Suppose it IS true that sofiety admits the fact. Does not society provide divorce?
 But there is no reason why men and women should glory in their mis- takes. especially when the blunder relates to one of the most vital facts of life. The world has small respect for bunglers in any calling, and much less for those who bungle marriage. Something is the matter with at least one partner in every such mistake. And surely it is not too much to ask married ladies who are no longer in love with their husbands to abide a proper dissolution of the bond. It is surely not respectable to rush into crime for lack of a little patience. Marriage to the other guilty person s usually all too small a punishment for such an offense.
 REDISTRICTING.
 S-p