The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1919-11-09

Ir1r61r NNr I'm he following
article 1ir For7 = Brtfcr1ley. vho
llss a}vaVs tsk,.. = keen interest IN
Ia rnHor--1 ~ the marriage laws and
" 'o introduced bin dealing with
the subject in the british HOUSE Of
Caryr'ots some years ago, again
.'e41- rith tao church = take a
f-c- and = orc humane view @
.r~ problem NJ unhappy marriages.
osNccislv ha7 iUE regard To The -
Gs4Fstlate neral reaction follawtng me
v4r His isv should b. particular
. ptrtitcr5t =. *nrt301
pv ToE AyTD UoTroNIr-y, NJ p.
tt3ito- ~ John 21il" Vecklrv Ma 2
sctn~. With = circulation of moro
than two rasiUou
V hat change are neceesary ~
aslrahie n IT., eTist'rs BRUSH laws
= X -ia@s' 81 tig1arre = T~>" r.
W arc told tA4t here are some
ere r,r+-f #>t-$ svva#sanE trial IN the
6lyntcc c0prt 8r@ am afraid ina
fcev repre- sent no more thar a 1.-THE
81 The eases IN which relief from
& rortaco ~ ~ assorted matri-
UnT o7E.lt reasons hlv b@ sought
IN Is ~ the greatest iruporta nee.
fae~tnra that P~-Nauert should
address ITSELF 70 THIS SUI 'ect with
"ut delay
Since 1SS- rte- me British d.
vorc~ court ,cas osta hlished. the
stsra has re.rvE Ti7ed the legal dtssol
rtiur ~ She marriage hord as the
t~rrn4l remedy for matrimonial dis
~-dars. But nc lax Is hedged
around with ore-eus restrictions In
he first rlace as everyone knows.
r >re is one law for the wife and
Mother fnr tho husband On the
v'nr1ans mart siYorle infidel:ty Is
8 fficfent 10 entitle the husband to
Tis re}e3se. while N the mans case.
cruelty or teser.ira must he added
~ that offonse. Nor IS this the only
anor1n'v.
I CASES OF '130-H Ef'nr~
- Is iitricuit u find any real JUST
NcarioN for The rule which denies
a 81 ores except on the special m
B ta-vSntion * the court to man
or woman who has heer tempted
ty partners irhdelitv 20 seek an
unc"0ve ntiorsI remedy. In this man
rer ] orr in warm agreement with
cir F3wardw Narsha'l Hall, X. c.,
, WHO contenW that in such cases n
1 decree should issue o, the basis Of
fs.Uits On hotr sides"
As things stand at present de-
tended suit Is A costly lu%ur~ avail
: gble onlA- 70 the wealthy while even
, an uniefcaded petition NAV cost
! hundreds Of pounds To sue as a
poor person is not necessarily 10
/ cscane this heavy OUTLAY. n the
i parties should he living at a distance
/ from London there will he travelling
'vncneos of witnesses to pay and
their keen in town
! 1NTOLtE ABLE ISTINACTES
Again consider the evil OF the ,udi-
fjsi or naalisterial set,aration Here
o~atn lhc State It. seems to me, is
: hynocriltlal and Inconsistent II re
ocniZes that certain form OF mis-
O. 9uct on the rart Of tho wifi or
lushanl crUeit. or deserLion with
out inf'idciity. hahitual drunkenness
and tbs ike. While insufficient to
: support divorce petition. may he
such as tC rend"- Sntc|era Bile the in
timacics Of married life
( The remedy offered is a separa'
. ton leaving the legal bond rn-
touched and enjoinine upon the
parties. II they respect the mora
code of lifelong celibacy pre5udica,
tn thA Individual and 70 the COM
munitv.
Law InCitcs irregularities
4 In uest many instances, o,
cour-e. there is no attempt, or al
the best, a SPEEDY failure to live mr.
N this trying standard. and the
law thur operates az . definite in
; eitcnens % '1rregulariticss And svsa