HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Mr. STEWART, of Rush, moved to dispense with the reading of the journal of yesterday.
Mr. COFFROTH demanded the yeas and nays-the vote resulting, yeas 46, nays 5.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Marshall, moved ineffectually, that the House do now adjourn.
Mr. VATER moved a call,,of the House, which determined fifty-one members present and answering to their names.
Mr. RATLIFF moved that the doors be closed and the Doorkeeper be dispatched for the absentees.
Mr. BOWEN submitted the excuse for for the absence of his colleague, Mr. Underwood, just received by dispatch.
Mr. STANTON moved that the House do now adjourn, the vote resulting-yeas 36, nays 15-as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Baker, Barnett, Beatty, Bowen, Breckinridge, Chapman, Chittenden, Dunn, Fairchild, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Gilham, Greene, Hall, Hamilton, Higbee, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Millekan, Miller, Pierce of Vigo, Ruddell, Skidmore, Smith, Stanton, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Vater, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of Union, and Wilson-36.
NAYS-Messrs. Beeler, Coffroth, Cox, Davidson, Davis of Elkhart, Gordon, Higgins, Mason, Mitchell, Overmyer, Ratliff, Sabin, Stephenson, Taber, and Mr. Speaker-15.
Mr. RATLIFF, explaining his negative vote, said, We need a few more members to pass a Specific Appropriation bill which we have been talking about for a month or two; and, preferring to wait for a quorum for that purpose, he voted "no."
Mr. COFFROTH, in his seat. There is no member absent for any such purpose.
Mr. DUNN desired to change his vote from the negative to the affirmative, and submitted his reasons for so doing. He said: I vote aye; and I do it because I understand that, when the hour of 10 o'clock arrives, we are to have a quorum. If the purpose of the minority on this floor is to defeat necessary legislation, because the majority have chosen to postpone and make a certain proposition the special order for a certain time, I am in favor of availing ourselves of the parliamentary rule to adjourn this body till 2 o'clock.
So the House took a recess till 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at 2 o'clock.
Mr. OVERMYER submitted the following, which was read for information:
page: 226[View Page 226]Resolved, That the House will proceed instanter upon the amendments of the (Senate to the specific appropriation bill, and, after not exceeding two hours consideration, will proceed to vote finally upon said amendments. That, at 4 o'clock P. M., or as soon as the specific appropriation bill shall be disposed of, (not later than the hour of 4 o'clock P. M.) the House will take up the bill [H. R. 119] known as the Morgan raid bill, and proceed at once to concur or non-concur in the amendments of the Senate thereto, without any motion to adjourn, or any dillatory motion whatever.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Marshall, and Mr. DAVIS, of Floyd, moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The SPEAKER. The resolution was read simply for information. It was with the House to consider it or not. The Chair hears objection.
Mr. RATLIFF moved, that the House now take up the consideration of the Senate amendments to the Specific Appropriation bill [H. R. 311] reported yesterday by message; and, thereupon, he demanded the previous question.
Mr. COFFROTH, on the statement of the order, insisted that no vote for consent having been taken, Mr. Overmyer's resolution is before the House, and Mr. Ratliff's motion is an amendment thereto.
The SPEAKER overruled the point submitted.
Mr. WILLIAMS, of Knox, desired to submit Mr. Overmeyer's resolution as an substitute-amendment for Mr. Ratliff's motion.
The SPEAKER said there was a demand for the previous question, and the amendment could not be entertained.In the confusion which was here variously interposed, a motion was made and carried for a call of the House, which was ordered and proceeded, reporting eighty-three members present.
Mr. CHITTENDEN moved to dispense with further proceedings under this call.
Mr. COFFROTH demanded the yeas and nays; and the vote was ordered and the call of the roll proceeded.
Mr. OSBORN interposed, and said he was informed that there are really but few Democratic members in the House. That most of them have resigned. And, therefore, the House being without a quorum, I move to adjourn till to-morrow morning.
The SPEAKER. There is no official information of the fact of any resignations of members.
Mr. OSBORN. I have just come from the Executive office, and the resignations are there.
The SPEAKER. The Chair having no official information of the matter, the roll will proceed. And when Mr. Lawler's name was called-
Mr. OSBORN interposing. I object to the gentleman's voting. He is not a member of this House. [A voice, "I am glad of the objection."]
Mr. GORDON insisted that the gentlemen should be called and treated as a member.
The SPEAKER. The Chair holds that gentlemen must be treated as members here, till we are officially informed otherwise.
Mr. PIERCE, of Vigo. Would it be proper to ask a gentleman, who is not now but has been heretofore a member, whether he is a member or not?
The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks it would not. And Mr. Lawler's name being again called by the Clerk-
Mr. DAVIS, of Floyd, interposed. Mr Speaker, Mr. Lawler has requested me to state to the House that he is no longer a member of this body, and desires not to be called.
Mr. COFFROTH, interposing. I take it that when a gentleman announces here that he is not a member, that is sufficient information.
The SPEAKER again directed the call of the roll to be proceeded with; and when the names of Mr. McBride and Mr. McDonald were called, they arose and declared respectively, That having dissolved their connection with this House, they decline to vote.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter, interposing. I object to gentlemen being excused so long as they are in their places here.
Mr. CHITTENDEN, interposing. I move that the House adjourn till to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock.
The SPEAKER. The motion is not in order pending the roll-call: And when Mr. Neffs name was called, he said: Within the last few minutes my resignation has been tendered to the Executive, and accepted, and I am therefore no longer a member of this body, and I-
Mr. JOHNSTON, of Parke, interposing. If the gentleman is no longer a member of this body, I submit that he has no right to address the Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The chair has no official information that gentlemen have resigned, such as would allow the House to act upon it. Mr. Neff then asked that his name be stricken from the roll. And when Mr. Sleeth's name was called by the Clerk.
Mr. DAVIS, of Floyd, said. I am requested by Judge Sleeth to state that he is no longer a member of this House.
The call proceeded; and when the name of Mr. Williams was called for the county of Knox, he said: I have handed in my resignation within the last twenty minutes with thirty or forty others. My name therefore, need not be called.
The SPEAKER announced the results of this voteyeas 16, nays 55.
page: 227[View Page 227]Mr. OSBORN sent up a resolution, which he hoped the House would considder now by consent.
Mr COFFROTH said the question is on the motion of the gentleman from Grant.
The SPEAKER. The resolution will be read.
Resolved, That William M. Mervin, principal Clerk John O. Hardesty, principal Assistant Clerk of the House of Representatives, be each allowed $150 for indexing and reading proofsheets of the House Journal of the Regular Session of 1869 and that the same be allowed to each for the indexing and proof-reading of the House Journal of the Special Session; and that the Sneaker is hereby authorized to issue his warrant for the same.
The resolution was adopted by consent.
Mr. DUNN submitted the following, which was read for information:
WHEREAS, The honorable members of this House, have, by their resignation, defeated the passage of the Appropriation bill, the Morgan Raid bill, and other business of importance thereby robbing the creditors of the State of Urge sums of money due them; and declaring that the minority, and not the majority should control, thus striking at the foundation of civil society, therefore-
Resolved, That while we condemn and censure in act revolutionary in its character, we congratulate the people of the State on their happy deliverance from the curse of a factious minority.
The SPEAKER now stating that, although there was a quorum voting on the motion to dispense with the proceedings on the call of the House, doubt was entertained about the result, and he would therefore order that the roll be called again for the vote on that motion.
The order was made accordingly, and the tote resulted-yeas 52, nays 3-as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Baker, Barnett Beatty, Beeler, Bowen, Breckinridge, Chapman, Chittenden, Davidson, Davis of Elkhart, Dunn, Field of Lake, Field of Lagrange, Furnas, Gilham, Gordon, Greene, Hall, Hamilton, Higbee, Higgins, Hutson, Johnson of Parke, Johnson of Marshall, Jump, Kercheval, Lamborn, Mason, Millekan, Miller, Mitchell, Monroe, Osborn, Overmeyer, Pierce of Porter, Pierce of Vigo, Ratliff, Ruddell, Sabin, Skidmore, Smith, Stanton, Stephenson, Stewart of Ohio, Stewart of Rush, Taber, Underwood, Vater, Wildman, Williams of Hamilton, Williams of Union and Wilson-52.
NAYS- Messrs- Coffroth, Davis of Floyd, and Mr. Speaker 3.
Mr. DUNN explaining and desiring to change his vote said, apologetically: I dislike to exchange old friends for new ones. I vote "aye" instead of "no."
So, further proceedings under the call of the House were dispensed with.
Mr. KERCHEVAL, rising to a question of privilege, called the attention of the House to the statement of the gentleman from Knox (Mr Williams), that some twenty minutes ago, he, with with forty others, had handed in their resignations; that the result of the vote then taken showed that 69 or 70 votes were cast, and the result of the vote just announced showed but 55 members present - the House without a quorum voting; and that these results of the voting show, either that the gentleman from Knox was mistaken, or that gentlemen voted without authority on the result first reported.
Mr. COFFROTH. Not at all. For while the gentleman, (Mr. Williams, of Knox) although the resignations had been submitted within the twenty minutes previous, were waiting, both here and going to the Governor's room, and were being informed that their resignations were received.
The SPEAKER then announced-no quorum voting.
Mr. PIERCE, of Porter submitted the following, which was read:
Resolved, That H. H. Robinson be allowed per diem as reading Clerk, from the 8th to the 13th of April,Which was not entertained.
Mr. GORDON submitted the following, which was adopted by consent:
Resolved, That Thomas B. McCown, Doorkeeper, of this House, be allowed $36 mileage for organizing the special session of the 46th General Assmbly, and that the Speaker issue his warrant for the same.
Mr. STEWART, of Rush, submitted the following, which was adopted.
Resolved, That the Speaker be directed to draw his warrant for $25 to each of the members of the Prison Committee who visited the prisons under direction of the House.
Mr. STEWART also submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Journal Clerks he each allowed $1 per day fer extra services after the adjournment to-day, during the present session, and that the Speaker is hereby directed to draw his warrant, &c.
Mr. RANDELL submitted the following:
WHEREAS, It is rumored on every hand that means by no means reputable to the friends of the Morgan raid bill are being freely used in the interests of said bill; therefore
Resolved, That a committee of seven be appointed, whose duty it shall be to meet instanter and proceed to investigate in accordance with the preamble to this resolution, and ascertain if possible the source of the great lobby influence which is being exerted in the interest of the Morgan raid bill; and
Resolved, That said committee shall have power to send for persons and papers, and it shall be the duty of said committee to subpoena such witnesses as may be found in the lobbies and in the city, place them in separate rooms and examine them separately.
Mr. DAVIS of Floyd, desired to add: That said Committee be directed to inquire further into the means employed for the location of the Agricultural College, and for the defeating of the Municipal Bank Shares Taxation bill; and also, as to the propriety of the proceedings of the Committee on Prisons. [Laughter].
Mr. COFFROTH The resolution is out of order.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will take occasion, during the recess, to appoint this page: 228[View Page 228] Committee of seven-if he find enough members left to compose it.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Union, submitted a concurrent resolution for printing 1000 copies of the journal in the German language.
Mr. COFFROTH submitted the point that the resolution could not be entertained, because there is no quorum present.
The SPEAKER. The point is well taken.
Mr COFFROTH submitted the following:
Resolved, That the Governor be respectfully requested to inform this House how many, if any, members of this body have tendered their resignations, in order that it may appear whether the General Assembly can further prosecute the public business for want of a quorum.
The SPEAKER. It is not competent for the House to do any legislative business, after it has been ascertained that there is no quorum present.
Mr. DAVIDSON moved to close the doors and send for absentees.
The SPEAKER. The chair is bound to entertain that motion.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. GORDON submitted the following:
WHEREAS, It has become known that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, known as the fifteenth article can not pass at the present session of the General Assembly with a quorum present,
Therefore Resolved, That the further consideration of the subject be referred to the people of the State of Indiana for their approval at the next general election.
Objection being made-
On motion of Mr. RATLIFF,
The House adjourned.
IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SPEECH OF MR. PIERCE,
OF PORTER COUNTY,
On the Divorce Question.
The divorce bills of the House and Senate being under consideration, Mr. Pierce, of Porter, offered a substitute for the bills, which substitute provides:
First. That every summons in a divorce case where the defendant is a resident of the State shall be served by reading, and not by copy, except in cases where the defendant is endeavoring to elude or avoid process, of which fact full proof shall be made.
Second. That when a divorce has been, or may hereafter be decreed between parties resident of the State, and service has been had by copy, the case may be opened up, in all matters relating to property, as now provided in case of non-resident defendants.
Third. The Court shall examine the plaintiff, and such other witnesses as it may deem proper, (in cases where the defendant is a non-resident) touchin7 the character of his or her residence, and if appears that he or she came into the State for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, shall dismiss the case without further hearing.
Mr. Pierce then said: "Mr. Speaker. Many bills have been introduced into the House and Senate upon this subject, and a deep feeling is manifested through the entire State regarding this matter.
The bills before us embrace almost every device for remedying the abuses of our system; but they all seem to be impracticable. There is no measure before this body in regard to which I have received so many earnest petitions from my people. I crave the indulgence of the House while I review as briefly as possible, the general features of our divorce laws, and the objections thereto.
I do not insist that our present statute can not be improved, but that great care must be exercised in its modification, so that our condition may not be rendered worse, instead of better, by the change. That great abuses exist under our law of divorce is most true-that they are in the main, however, the fault of illogical and unauthorized deductions from the law, or violations of its spirit, and not of the law itself, I believe to be none the less a fact. In many of these cases false and fraudulent testimony is adduced, and our courts have generally felt compelled to receive this testimony as true when no attempt has been made to impeach it, notwithstanding a fair suspicion might well attach to the witness from the style of delivery or the method in which the evidence was obtained. In my opinion, the court should exercise a wider discretion, and subject the evidence, especially that which appears in the form of depositions, to a close scrutiny, positively disregarding that which is tainted, or has the semblance of fraud. If just grounds exist for divorce, there can be no difficulty improving them, under our liberal system, to the most perfect satisfaction of the court.
It is to remedy this, however, and make certain and directory, what I now regard as implied, that I introduce this substitute for the bills now pending before the House. In offering this substitute I go upon the ground that the general principle of our Divorce law is correct, and upon that proposition I shall base my argument.
What are considered sufficient grounds for divorce by our statute?
- First-Adultery.
- Second-Impotency.
- Third-Abandonment for one year.
- Fourth-Cruel treatment.
- Fifth-Habitual Drunkenness.
- Sixth-Conviction of an infamous crime.
- Seventh-Any other cause which the court may deem sufficient.
Is there one of these causes, which upon careful reflection, we would change?
When the husband refuses to live With his wife, and continues this refusal beyond the time when a reasonable hope can be entertained of his return and reconciliation, just that the injured party should remain bound if she desires a release?
page: 229[View Page 229]A failure to provide the necessary support for his family is another cause, and who change this?
The spectacle which we too often see of lazy, shifting men, idling their time away, while their wives, whom they have sworn to cherish and support, are reversing the order of things and maintaining them by their hard and illy requited labor, is such a palpable argument in favor of this cause that I need not enlarge upon it. The man has promised to love, protect support and defend his wife, and when he fails in any of these, he violates his contract, and the injured party should, by every rule of law and equity be releived from the further performance of her part of the agreement.
You cannot compel a man to remain at home. You cannot compel him to speak kindly to his wife. You cannot compel him to work, and by his labor provide for his family. He may disregard public opinion and public decency. He may leave her to toil through life in loneliness and misery, but thanks to a law which, in my opinion, is wise and salutary, there is a remedy when forbearance ceases to be a virtue, and that is in severing every link which binds her to a man who has ceased to deserve the name of husband.
Bishop, in his admirable work on Marriage and Divorce, defines marriage to be the "civil status of one woman and one man, united in law for life, under an obligation to discharge to each other and to community the duties which the community by its laws holds incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex." The definition of other writers approximate his.
The Roman Catholics regard marriage as a sacrament, and tho' Protestants do not so look upon it, they still account it of divine origin and invest it with the sanctions of religion. I propose to examine this in a worldly point of view first; that it is a civil contract entered into by parties intellectually and phisically capable of performing its duties. Although our law books hold marriage to be a civil contract, yet all agree that it differs in many respects from other contacts of that nature, and this distinction is indicated in the definition given by Bishop. Contracts generally are of a nature that concern only the contracting parties, but there is an obligation to discharge the duties which the parties owe to community as well as themselves. While the contract is merely executory it does not differ materially from from any other, and damages may be recovered by either party for failure to comply with the agreement. But when the contact has so far progressed as to be merged in the status of marriage, the peculiar nature of the results the new duties and responsibilities creep in, demand a larger and wider significance than the words civil contract imply.
In law, then, marriage is something more than this; if it were not so, any violation of agreement would be held sufficient to dissolve it. Neglect, where love had been promised; harsh epithets, where kind words had been contemplated; disobedience, where compliance with the will of the husband had been required as a condition precedent to the union; all these, were marriage strictly a civil contract, would be grounds for its dissolution, and as between the parties themselves, these would even now constitute an equitable ground for divorce, but just here the community step in and hold that nothing but the most flagrant violation of the contract in which the public has so much interest shall relieve the parties from the obligations they have assumed.
It is admitted by all that there is no contract of such importance to the parties as this. It overshadows all other earthly agreements, because upon the wisdom or folly of the choice depends the happiness or misery of the parties. In my opinion, the fact that it is so sacred a thing, is the strong reason why its every requirement should not be violated with impunity, and why, when its priviliges have been trampled into the dust-by one of the parties, that it should be dissolved.
There is one phase of this matter which is a singular one, and which vidialy illustrates the distinction between this and other contracts: A minor makes a con tract for a horse, or any other trifling piece of property, and the law, regarding him as under its protection, says to the vendor: You can not enforce the agreement. When the young man comes to maturity, if he desires, he can hold you to the contract: but if he wishes to annul it, he is at liberty so to do and there is no remedy, because the law regards him as incapable of deciding for himself as to what is best for his interests. But the same young man, while the hot and inconsiderate blood of youth is coursing through his veins, enters into a contract overshadowing in its importance all others which could have been made; one which no shrewdness or wisdom in after life can remedy. And yet the law says to him, you have chosen your course, and must abide the issue. I have sometimes doubted the wisdom of such a law, and sometimes have thought it might be well to fix a more mature age at which marriage should be valid, but, as I said, this illustrates the distinction between contracts of this nature and other civil contracts, sinking the interests of the minor in that of the community. I am glad to know, also, that early marriages are usually happy ones, and that there exists, in fact, no pressing demand for change in this respect, otherwise the justice of granting some remedy would appeal very strongly to us. Has the operations of our law worked illy to public morals? I think not. Crime is said to be on the increase ; but so is our population, and so are our facilities for ascertaining of crime. And then, even if such were the fact, and attempts were made to attribute it in a measure to our laws of divorce, we can readily point to other States where divorces are not granted save for scriptural offences, and page: 230[View Page 230] where licentiousness, in the garb of aristocracy, stalks and flaunts itself defiantly in the face of public opinion.
If we are degenerating, then some other cause must be assigned.
Every State has an interest in the private morals, public happiness, general virtue and legitimate increase of the community. Sound policy, therefore, demands the dissolution of those marriages which fail to accomplish the ends for which they were enacted. By this means the State obtains the fruits of new alliances and children are trained under better influences." I once heard a public lecturer assert that he could tell in five minutes conversation with children, the relations of the father and mother, whether happy or otherwise the influences of home showing itself plainly in the manner and conversation of the children. The influence for evil which unhappy homes exert on the early plaetic minds of children can hardly be estimated.
"Education," says a distinguished writer, "does not commence with the alphabet. It begins with a mothers look-with a fathers smile of approbation or reproof, with a sisters gentle pressure of the hand, or a brothers nable act of forbearance, with thoughts directed in sweet and kindly tones and words, to nature, to acts of benevolence, to deeds of virtue, and to the source of all good, to God himself,"
To such names, and to such easy education can we trace the noble men and women of our land.
Better no home, better wander a desolate orphan at once, than to grow up amid scenes of dissention and strife, where every word of cruelty and reproach, and strife is sent into the mind to remain, and fester, and bear its noxious fruit. I have watched many divorces and the subsequent lives of the parties; and I do not now remember one where the results were not beneficial to both parents and children. Of course there are exceptions, perhaps many of them, but such do not now occur to me; while I remember many where happiness and contentment were the result.
Much remark has been made regarding a disgraceful case which occurred recently at Lagrange. The peculiar hardship of that case seems to be that the wife was left penniless by the decree of divorce. Had the case been of a different character, however, the same fraud might have been perpetrated, and one of the objects of the bill which I present is to provide that this case may be opened up so far as regards the question of property and the injured wife receive substantial justice. The father is plainly under obligations to support his wife and children, and the same statute which granted him the divorce should compel him to provide for those to whom he owes this duty.
If the law provided this remedy where would be the hardship in this case? Do you say it is cruel to separate a woman from such a man? "Why, that would be to say that he was worthy of her love-that he was a valuable article of furniture-a treasure which the good wife should cherish and not despise. When, if I read the reports correctly and interpret the epithets aright, he announced os a monster unworthy the so amiable a lady. What then has she lost except the share of property which justly belonged to her and which she should yet recover? Nay! rather has she not gained more than a thousand such estates are worth in being separated forever from this wretched semblance of a man.
And now comes in an illustration of that portion of our law which permits a judge to decree a divorce upon any grounds which may deem sufficient.
The position of a judge is a high one, surrounded with many difficulties, but he as well as other officers, is amenable to the law and must wield his prerogatives with care and prudence.
He may, it is true, decree divorces without any perceptible reason, but so may he decide other momentous questions; and this power is one of the necessary evils which it is hard to remedy. It is the practice I believe to confine decress of divorce to the statutary grounds, and only in exceptional cases is the rule departed from. But this case before us furnishes an exception. Suppose this man had gone into court, precisely as he did go in ; had sought a divorce on the same grounds and for the same reasons, and had only failed through some technical defect in his papers; after this endeavor to rob his family and abandon his wife, would any man say she was not entitled to a divorce? and yet, by repealing that section which leaves this to the discretion of the Court, she would be wholly without a remedy, unlest she could prove him guilty of some of the offenses mentioned in the statute. This is one case in many where a repeal of that law would work hardship to the injured party.
This consideration of the divorce law is not by any means new. Connecticut had a law similar to our own, and she repealed it. Divorces were then granted by the Legislature, and hardly a case was refused. At last the law was re-enacted, save the clause giving the Court discretionary power, and, finally this clause was added to the rest. And yet, no one reviles Connecticut for her divorce system, but, on the contrary, she is known all over the world as the land of steady habits.
Many persons, if they knew that a divorce could not be obtained would behave far more loosely than otherwise. If they knew that no offense of theirs could separate them from a desirable partner, the restraint which a wholesome fear of the consequences now throws around them would be gone, and offenses against the marriage relation would vastly increase. "Honest liberty is the greatest foe to dishonest license."
In England, violations of the laws of morality and promiscuous indulgences, where parties are married in law, but not not in fact have reached a frightful pitch. "Illegitmate births are of daily occurrence, polygamy is winked at, though a in the statute books." And there, laws punishing adultery, except as an ecclesiastical offense, is unknown.
page: 231[View Page 231]South Carolina, the only State in the Union where a divorce has never been granted, and where adultery is not an indictable offense, found it necessary to enact a law regulating by statute how much property a man should give his concubine.A learned Judge said from the bench: "In this country, where divorces are not granted for any cause, whatever, we sometimes see men of excellent character unfortunate in their marriages, and virtuous women abandoned or driven away houseless by their husbands, who would be doomed to live a life celibacy and solitude if they did not form new connections which the law does not allow, and who make excellent husbands and virtuous wives still.
"In other words, the husband and wife who not live happily together and who separate and form new connections, unlawful though they be, make with their new commons "excellent husbands and virtuous wives still." And yet the laws of South Carolina, permitting this State of things, winking at the commission of crime, prefers that the dissatisfied husbands and wives of that State should live in disgraceful and notorious adultery, rather than that a wholesome divorce law should encumber the statute of their virtuous commonwealth.
"The reports of that State record one case where a man took his negro slave woman to his bed and table, and compelled the unoffending wife to receive the crumbs after her, and still the court refused to sever this living body from this putrid carcass."
There are some who think that our law should recognize none but what they term the scriptural ground for divorce, and regard adultery as the only sufficient cause, while others seem to think that excessive cruelty is also recognized as sufficient by Divine minority. An examination will show how difficult it is to come to a clear conclusion regarding the scriptural doctrine.
"Whosoever putteth away his wife," says the Word, "save for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
It is plain, from other portions of the Scripture, that the Saviour did not intend to change the old Mosaic law upon this subject, because, in the same chapter, he says he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, and the old law permitted the husband to be the sole judge of the causes for which he he might put her away. The words are, he has found some "uncleanness in her," and might seem to indicate adultery alone; but as that offense was punished with death, and therefore the putting her away would work no advantage, the words must have a wider meaning. Again, the words used in the original and in our English version is fornication, which could only be committed before marriage, and consequently could not mean adultery. I wish I had time to enlarge upon this part of the subject, but I can only thus briefly refer to it.
Of all propositions that are made, that proposing to divorce from bed and board are the worst. It is properly characterized by Lord Stowell as "casting out the parties in the dangerous characters of a wife without a husband and a husband without a wife;" by Judge Swift as "placing them in a situation where there is an irresistible temptation to the commission of adultery, unless they pessess more frigity or more virtue than usually falls to the lot of human beings;" and by Mr. Bancroft as "punishing the innocent more than the guilty." Mark the last. Here is a divorce decreed for adultery. The man is the guilty party. You do not restrain him from crime by prohibiting a remarriage, for it is not likely one who has forgotten the duties which he owes to his wife will observe those which he owes to society. He has committed the offence once and he will commit it again. The decree is no punishment to him who deserves the penalty, but compels the wife against whom there is no wrong, to live out a life of thankless solitude, the victim of a crime which met her heartiest condemnation.
Such injustice would not obtain in other matters-why is this? The remedy proposed is a mere compromise which men who believe the marriage contract indissoluble, make with their consciences, and is made up of "pious doctrine and worldly stupidity."It is only equaled by that other absurd law, which prevails somewhat in England, under which suits may be brought for the "Restitution of conjugal rights," and whereby a man who forsakes his bed and board, as some people propose that he shall do by law, may be brought back and "thrust into the bliss which in his judgeship's opinion, he has too lightly prized."
There are those who sneer at the love which buds and blossoms anew in a heart once made desolate by an unhappy marriage.
There is a tendency indeed to look upon marriage of every kind now-a-days as a business transaction, where so much is paid in money or physical beauty as the price of the union. And so it comes that when an injured wife or an outraged husband, seek redress for their wrongs in a court of justice they are regarded as lascivious wretches, who only wish to sever the old bonds that that they may contract new alliances for sensual gratification.
Mr. Speaker, I cry out against this wholesale denunciation. I think of that young girl who, in the warm flush of youth, has been led by false promises and mistaken affection to throw herself away on one who proves recreant to every vow. The bright visions which delighted her girlsh imagination, and flitted like a golden sunbeams across her future are dissolved. The great end and aim of existence is lost to her. The pleasing fancies which she had conjured up and treasured so dearly are dispelled, and the web of happiness which she had woven for herself is torn in shreds by the hand which should have strengthened it.
Then the heart which was once so light and tender and loving, grows cold and heartless and cynical. Then the cheeks which once crimsoned at a look, grow pale and pinched page: 232[View Page 232] and relentless. Life to her is a burden, happiness is a lie, and weary and disconsolate she longs for rest, "anywhere, anywhere, out of the world."
But suddenly a hope, like that which seizes the wrecked mariner as he sees in the dim speck upon the horizon a sign of relief, brightens her eye and once more quickens her pulse. There is a hope, and it becomes tangible and real to her when the majesty of the law steps, in protecting the humble and defenceless, and relieves her of the ponderous chains which rivit her to the earth. She is free once more, and in after years you may see th,at wronged woman, after passing under the chastening rod, which has purified and exhalted her, in a happy home surrounded by all that makes life desireable and looking back only with a shudder at the existence she has left behind.
A happy marrriage and a home where love reigns and peace and virtue sit enthroned is the grand end, the consumation devoutly wished by every true woman. It has been and I trust mey ever be, the girlish dream of happiness; and I can imagine no greater misery than that which surrounds a woman who,in her trusting confidence,has irredeemably lost this great prize in the lottery of life. I would riot place it beyond her power to try once again with that keener preception which experience has given her to retrieve this great misfortune. But blot this beneficent remedy from the statute book and what has left. There is nothing, there is no hope, there is no change; there is no deeper despondency.
Aye, there is one step beyond, and I believe to-day that in States where this remedy is denied, if the truth could be known, you would find your homes of infamy largely recruited from the ranks of unhappy and despairing wives. There is that remedy left her, and when the end comes, as it must to all such, when the garments of the grave are wrapped about the despised and neglected form, men will jeer and virtuous women will turn away their heads, while pious divines warn their flocks by this additional example that "the wages of sin is death."
I trust it will be long before a law which is at emnity with such a course will be stricken from the statute books.
I hope I am not one of those, sir, who look too lightly upon the sacred relation of husband and wife; sacred in its name, sacred in its origin, sacred in its duties, sacred in its confidences and associations, and sacred in these and for these alone. Indeed, sir, there is no holier sight to me than that of the loving and confiding wife, and the proud and faithful husband walking hand in hand together through the journey of life, suffering together, enduring together, rejoicing together as one. The sight brings tears of penitence to the eyes of the harlot, and crimsons the brazen face of the professional roue and debauchee. And, as they grow older, as the autumn of life approaches, and then brown locks are tinged with silver and the winter comes on with its crowning glory of white, typical of the purity of those faithful hearts, the sight ' grows even more beautiful, for we then see that time does not always lay his hand unkindly upon his victims, but sometimes only touches to bless them, and that "every wrinkle which puts on their brows, is only another notch in the quiet calendar of a well-spent life!" The grain is ripe and ready for the sick and death to them is nought but being garnered home. They've climbed the hill together, and together they will sleep, peace fully, quietly, lovingly at its foot. I never hear a Scotchman repeat those beautiful lines of Burns', with all the advantages the quaint old fashioned dialect, which none but a Scotchman can properly render, that I can not almost see good old John Andersen as he sits, smiling through his tears at the plain and homely but tender and loving words of his faithful wife."
- John Anderson, my Joe John, when we were
- first acquaint,
- Your locks were like the raven, your bonnie
- brow was brent;
- But now your getting auld, John, your locks are
- like the snow,
- Yet blessings on your frosty powa, John Ander-
- son my Joe.
- John Anderson, my Joe John, we clam the hill
- thegither,
- And mony a canty time, John, we had we ane
- anither;
- Now, we maun totter down, John, but hand in
- hand we'll go,
- And we'll sleep thegither at the foot, John Ander
- son, my Joe."
Ah! John Anderson, there was no neglect no cruelty, no abandonment there. It was union where mutual love and confident prevailed ; a man and woman whom God had indeed joined together, and whom man should not and could not separate.
I hope the House will pardon me for this digression, but the subject naturally led me into it. Such marriages are made in heaven, and whether they be the results of the first or the second love, I would do all that in me lies to multiply their number, and thereby bless the parties, bless their offspring, and bless the State. One word regarding the particular provisions of the substitute I have offered, and I am through. It provides against fraud in the service of process, it provides against hardship in the matter of property like that which has just occurred in Lagrange, and gives relief in that case. It provides against the disgraceful custom which now permits residents to gain a technical residence here for the notorious and avowed purpose of securing a divorce. I venture to say that there can be no valid objection raised to the bill, and I hope it will pass. Some members say that we have not time to pass this bill now, and send it to the Senate. I hope the effort will be made, but if it should not, I can only say that I have done what I deem to be my duty in the matter, and represented so far as I have been able what I understand to be the wishes of my constituents.
