Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1922-03-03
NY. SOLOMONS {
DISAGREE ON :
Welded BLISS
One FavOrs Stringent Divorce
Laws-Otber Urges More =
Laxity.
AND so IT GOES

NEW YORK. March 81 -Diametricany
opposite views as to the best way Of
-emedying or solving the problem Of the
ige'-marria geSare held by two mod
arn Solomons of the New York bench.
Judge Alfred J. Tally, Of the court Of
general sessions, holds more stringent
marriage laws will result in fewer di-
vOrces- Senior Justice Leopold Prince,
Of the Eighth District municipal court. In
answer to Judge Tally. holds that
stricterN marriage laws would result In
I deluge of divorces, and that easier di-
vOrce laws would result ina far hap
pier condition Of life and living
Did taxation without fermentation
make fOrsa prohibition that prohibited 2"
asked Justice Prince.
MAKE MAN
JUMP OVER
barriers Of any kind only want TO
pake man jump over them" he ex-
planned. MAKE marriage laws stricter
and you will have a similar effect to
3hat produced by prohibition. Every
one knows that there have been more
hip bottles and more drinking. even
among young people than ever before 8,
People want to be free to do as they
choose. Legislative restraints imposed
upon them that deprives them of their
II
do G~thing they are told that they can
not
Before a man and a woman are mar
Tied both wear their best clothes. as it
were. Both are on their best behavior
Neither shows his or her real selfNto the
other. Then cannot foresee what the
other may turn out to be like after mar
ried life. And lust as they themselves
cannot forsee, neither can any law. For
that reason therefore, I cannot see how
stricter marriage laws would accomplish
anything.
LAUGHS At
LOCKS3uTHS."
=" Love laughs at lscksmiths.' and II
certainly win laugh at laws. II a couple
have made up their minds to be married
they will accomplish their marriage some
how.
There always have been runaway
marriages, and there always will Re.
Often they turn out to be happier mar
riages than those where the two have
kept company for years before Fnarrying
WHAT I advocate, then. is not strieter
marriage laws, but easier divorce laws.
10 the beginning Of civilization, In the
days OF Moses, a man could divorce his
wife on the grounds Of incOmpatibility.
Ia those days Of course, q woman was
Fuere chattel- Today. when woman is
the equal-Sf man, the law Of Moses
should work both ways. Either n man
or women should be allowed OF divorce
the other on the grounds Of incompati-
hlityf
DIVORCE LAWS
ARE GOOD"
Il an convinced the divorce laws OF
Nevada are good laws. There, after six
months residence. 4 divorce can be OBJ
,ained on the grounds Of desertion or
lon-sUppOrt or incompatibility.
Unfortunately, the divorce laws IN
Reno benefit the rich and not the poor.
The poor suffer here. just as they suffer
with prohibition. The rich man has his
fellsr stocked, but the poor man cannot
buy even a couple OF glasses of beer a
week.
The rich can go to Reno and stay. at
an expensive hotel for six months, but
no poor person can affoEd to go there to
obtain a divorce.
Il am In favor Of a unitC-m divorce law
that win bring about divorce on<the sim
pie grounds OF incompatibility, If for no
other reason than for the sake Of the
children. How can any children grow up
20 live useful. happy lives when their
parents are continually gfhting at
homer"