The Brunswick news. [volume] (Brunswick, Ga.) 1906-2016, 1921-09-25
OUR DIVORCE LAWS NEED RE-
FORMING. ~

| It is hoped that the. law-making
body of the state will soon give some
serious consideration to a general re-
vision of the present divorce laws of
the state.
The tremendous increase of divorce
within the last two or three decades
, has been a matter of serious concern
to every thoughtful man and woman
| lin fact, to every one who cares for
the stability of our family and social
life and for the perpetuity of our
much-prized governmental institu-
TONS
For it.. is admitted everywhere that
with the familyq, the unit of society
broken and destroyed by divorce. we
are cut loose from our old moorings
and drift we know not where.
Many laws and changes of laws
have been proposed to put check
on divorce, but it seems to increase
regardless of them all. AS we have
frequently pointed out divorce consti-
tutes a problem outside OF and be-
yond laws, for it is merely the symp-
ton of social disease which mani
tests itself in the courts, and never
yet has disease been cured by treat
ing the symptoms only.
The really alarming thing is not
that so many divorces are granted,
but the fact that so many people, be-
cause OF marital unhappiness, want
divorces. No law can make married
people happy who are not already.
But this condition should by no
means be an excuse for lax divorce
laws. Rather should 1t call for strict
ones--strict as is possible to enforce.
AS far as II can, the law should check
divorce and not make 1t easy.
Notwithstanding many good fea-
lures, Georgia's system of divorce
laws is too lax in that ii in effect al
lows divorces to be granted on ex-
parte and uncorroborated testimony.
II works out like this: Husband
and wife agree that they must be di-
vorced. One-we will say the hus-
band-files suit, and the wife doesn't
answer It, but let's it go by default.
The husband then comes before the
jury and can make out any sort of
case he chooses. for there is no wit
ness to contradict him, and he Is not
required to have any one corroborate
him. The jury has to accept what he
SAYS and grrus him divorce and. as
matter OF fact. OF course, permission
To remarry.
Then, several months after, the
wife comes into court asking for per-
mission to remarry, She then tells a
story of wrong treatment at the hands
of the husband that puts to shame
the story he told of wrong treatment
at her hands. But the story Is told
TO different jury, and likewise with
out the necessity OF corroborating ev.
idence. The jury can, OF course, do
nothing but believe she Is an i'll
treated woman and grant her petit
ton.
Thus the effect is that both parties
are released from the MATRIMONIAL
hands of the husband that puts to
want to tell--a condition that serves
largely 10 nullify other divorce pro
visions that may be restrictive and
beneficial.
Then too, the parties in many cas-
es are ready to remarry and do re-
marry Immediately after their de-
crees are granted. Such condition
leads to easy perjury and to many OF
the abuses which we have mentioned
II should be prevented. Remarrying
should be prohibited until after the
expiration of certain time after the
divorce Is granted.
These are some OF the more glaring
defects of Georgta's divorce laws
There may he and doubtless are 9th
ers. The next legislature should
TAKE up the divorce laws and give
them thorough overhauIing and re
vision and Strengthening.