Year: 1871

] 'hS ivMNoN NltN 70 nc taken OF n divorce ls


that It is the correction Of mistake. The


court examines and decides that two persons


who, after more or less acquaintance, had


made the most solemn possible contract with


each other to live together for life, have dis


covered some thing aftorward which vitiatos


the contract and makes it impossible for them


to carry it out. II decides not merely that the


contract may be held in allegiance, but that it


shall be annnlled, so that both parties may
form new one with somebody else, perhaps


to renew their mistake, and have it revised


aud corrected again. Now il is certainly a


grave question whether it is wise and for the
encouragement Of good morals to be constan.


ny correcting such mistakes, instead Of oblig.


ing the parties who have deliberately made


them, to abide by them, as in other and less
Important contracts, and boar the consequences


But 1t is also question worth serious con.
siderahon, whether it is not the duty of the
state to prevent as well as to correct There


Is great facility Of divorce. But there would
not be so much if there were not greater facil.
ity Of marriage.


The fact is that we begin at the wrong end,
and shut the stable dosr after the horse is gone.


II 1t were a little harder to be married, it
would not be necessary so often to be divorced.
Onco the intention Of marriage was required
to be made public, and that long enough before
hand to arrest premature or unsuitable we'd
ding But now it may be the most secret
transaction possible. Once people were oblig.
ed to face the music and openly declare before.
hand that they proposed marriage. Now a
boy or girl come to private understanding
they meet at the door Of clergymans house
IN the next town, or wherever they are un.
known; they 60 in, subscribe answers to a half
dozen questions about their age, and residence
and color say" will" and in five minutes
emerge husband and wife. Nobody knows
anything about it. Perhaps the persons them
selves are surprised, and 60 off wondering at
the presto vado by which in five minutes they
have become legally bound to each other for
life. 1t may have been an altogether sudden
aud unconsidered thing-the freak or the pas.
sion Of an excited hour. Aud absolutely no.
thing stood in their way. They only needed
dollar bill and the courage to march togeth-
or into a strange clergymans study If thoy
had to encounter publicity, or any reasonable
obstacle, if they had even to stop aud think,
in many cases there would be delay, if not
REIMBURSEMENT Of the project.


We are a very free, independent people in
our manners, and dislike any interference,
especially Of the state, in so very private and
personal matter as marriage. All reason
able respect is to be shown for the desire for
privacy and independence in so delicate
matter. But society has sacred moral interests
at stake in every marriage. 1t is not a purely
nv 10 trauen.tiav . - IL, L..
why should it not be under wise, efficient. salu.
tary law2 The question We raise is, why not
prevent hasty and private marriage2 Why
not hedge it up little, so that it may be a
little harder to jump in, as well as not so easy
to jump out +? Why not require previous pub
lication? Or if the impetuous haste for the
married state cannot brook that delay or pub
licity, at least let it run the gauntlet of some
registration or other preliminaries, before
rushing into the presence of the clergyman. |
II 1t is too despotic to require people to be |
married in the place where they belong, why |
not require them to declare their intention
there and leave a record behind them? We
are persuaded that many clergymen would be
glad Of some protection of this kind. They
are frequently called TO marry entire stran-
gers, who readily answer the few questions re.
quired by law and disappear, leaving the con-
scientlous minister in great trouble of mind, |
whether he has not given the most sacred
God-speed he can pronounce, to an ill-assorted
couple, perhaps minors, who are soon to run
through wretchcd union, repent of their un-
considered folly, and if they can, resort to the
supreme court to correct their mistake, to
which the clergyman, unprotected, has been an
innocent party. We express the conviction
of many thoughtful people, that the hoops of
our marriage laws might be tightened little
with good result and especially for the pre-
yenton of some Of the numerous mistakes |
which oblige our courts to reverse one in |
fourteen Of our marriages, after unspeakable
mischief and misery have been produced.