The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1934-02-03
Separation
on Trial Is
Condemned
Like Marriage, Parting
Should Be Final and
Complete.
BY GRETTA PALMER
Times Special Writer

separation Of husband and
wife received the official sanction
today Of Supreme Court Justice
Samuel I. ROsenman in a rare case
Of judicial discretion. holding a
three-year period sufficient for a
wife % rid herself Of infatuation fol
another man and a period in which
time may work a reconciliation with
her husband"
The question IS from a news dis
patch which came tipping lightly
over the wires 70 record the case
Of Goldsmith vs.. Goldsmith of the
Bronx, and their marital counter
suits
There IS no question Of miscon-
duct in the case. There is simply
the fact that Mrs. Goldsmith-in
the words Of the magistrate-has
entered into persistent close asso-
citation with a young man. accom-
panied BY many instances of DEM
Onstration Of affection between
them in the plaintiffs automobile,
in the vestibule and on the public
stairs Of the apartment house where
the plaintiff lived" Divorce is,
therefore. out Of the question for
lack Of grounds under New York
laws.
Full Parting or None
II you are a believer in trial mar
rage you viii probably be inclined
to applaud the decision Of the JUS
tice in favor Of trial separation. For
ourselves. we believe in doing things
Fundamentally or not at all And if
a couple proves so incompatible that
they take up separate residences it
seems to us mere quibbHng to offer
them a legal separation of any ten
ure Why not offer them a prompt
divorce?
There are undoubted benefits to
be derived from the status of le-
gally separated man or woman if
you happen TO be Of the exception
ally susceptible type who would
marry the first person who came
along unless restricted by considera-
ton of bigamy.
It is true that many a man has
sailed comfortably through half a
dozen violent flirtations which
might have led to marriage if he had
not already possessed an estranged
wife. But should our laws, after all,
be framed for the protection of such
pathOlOgically manageable types?
There is, you know. nothing on the
statutes which forces a divorced
man to propose. marriage unless he
feels inclined to.
Wishy-Washy Compromise
A separation is a wishy-washy
enough compromise. A trial Separa-
ton seems several degrees less desir-
able, Just as trial or companionate
marriage has always seemed to us to
be neither fish. flesh nor good red
hot love Both states of dangling
indecisiOn have a note of unhealthy
emotional uncertainty which must
be very trying to all concerned.
The only way to go at marriage,
according to the best survivors on
their golden wedding days, is to
take it at a fine clip. with every con-
victi0n that the blessed arrangement
will last forever.
And the only way to go at the
unpleasant business of separation, by
the same token, would seem to
break of relations at one clean
swOOp.
Change May Come
Perhaps. three years from now,
Mr.. and Mrs. Goldsmith will have
made up their unhappy differences.
Perhaps they will be charmed to take
up housekeeping together again.
But suppose the laws had been such
that they could have been granted
a complete divorce now simply be-
cause they wished to live apart.
If their love for each other is Of
any validity whatsoever it would
persist quite as we'll after a divorce
as after a trial separation.
And there is no law which says
that a divorced couple after a three
years vacation, are not quite free
to marry each other again.