Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1912-04-03

life OF complainant, excepting tndt
after five years have elapsed the
Judge granting the decree can modify
this provision and permit the defend
ant to marry again, 1f~the Judge sees
At to do SO. Separation for term OF
years or forever may be granted In
New York on the grounds OF cruel and
inhuman treatment, abandonment,
non-support, etc, but this does not
permit the parties to marry again.
In Detroit. however, they don't
bother with OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES is SO
much easier with the seven gates
without guardians. And in spite Of
all these things-the pulpit's warn
ing. the average OF four divorces q
day, the colony. the lax law-the
Judge who is the record breaker with
his 233 DEGREES in eleven months OBJ
jects strenuously to any publicity con-
corning the proceedings Of Detroit's d.
yorce courts. Last month he wrote a
letter to the publisher OF a Detroit
newspaper that has Instituted a cru
sade against the New Reno" idea. In
part, he said: "All divorce cases
should be heard In camera the state
being represented by counsel in
much the same manner as 1t now In
.tervenes In naturalization proceed
ings Such representation would in
sure against fraud and collision. and
would. moreover, give a vitality inter
ested party-the state--its day In
court. No publicity other than the
result arrived at. the granting or re-
fusal Of the decree sought. should be
had" 8
Finally this Judges decisions and
the notortety Detroit was likely to OBJ
tain came to the attention OF Cover
nor Osborn of Michigan. From the
capital at Lansing he promptly issued
a statement. In which he declared the
divorce laws should be made more
stringent. This statement follows:
Divorce In Michigan should be
made as difficult as possible. At
present 1t is too easy. I would make
marriage as easy as possible and d.
vorce as difficult as possible. 1t APP
pears evident that our laws governing
the latter lack strtngency lamentably.
Were married people aware that they
could not separate on tnexcusable
and tnconseQuential excuses there
would be more effort toward bringing
harmony in the home and a better ap-
probation OF the responsibilities men
and women assume when they marry.
There Is no reason why marriage
should be hedged about with rules II
those who enter into this contract
realize that once they have become
man and wife there is no easy way to
break It. II men and women knew
they; were marrying for life they
would either pause before taking the
vow or else they would begin home
life thoroughly understanding that
each mist do his or her share toward
harmony and accept the responsible
ties as they are. not as q temporary
bargain to be abrogated at the wish
OF either or both. e
i On the heels OF the governors
words Detroit was jerked up BY
statistical report. ltacame from Sec
rotary Of State Frederick G. Martin
dale and was given wide publicity. In
part this report said:
THE frequency OF divorce IN the
state OF Michigan has become APP
paIling. We are heading toward a
second Nevada Detroit, another
Reno. The consideration OF petitions
for divorce occupies very consider
able part OF the time of the courts
OF this state, and the magnitude OF
the question can hardly be shown bet
ter than by examining the official re-
turns filed In the department OF state
by the clerks OF the different coun-
ties. According to the statements re-
ceiyed there were l0.450 bills for di-
vorce pending In the courts OF Mtchi-
gan on January l. 1910. Most Of these
were in Detroit. The number OF new
bills fled during the year was $685..
making a total OF l6.046 cases under
consideration by the courts during
the year.
There we're 3,24s divorces granted
In Michigan during the year. while
only sixty-three were refused. 236
we're Withdrawn or otherwise disposed
of and 1851 would apparently go
over as divorces pending for the
present year. Taking l6.O46 as the
aggregate number Of cases before the
courts. then the number granted
would constitute 20.2 per cent. OF the
total number Of petitions, while no
less than Is per cent. remained pend
ing. The numbers refused and with
drawn together amount to only LIZ
per cent. Such comparison as the
above should be taken only as very
general one. and not as precisely In
.dicating the ratio Of divorces grant