OCR Text |
Show THE DIVORCE AND MARRIAGE QUESTION. Among all the din about divorce and the remarriage of divorced persons, It Is refreshing to note that a Congregational minister of Chicago has some saner Ideas than those generally expressed by the cloth. Ho speaks In opposition to the position assumed by the churches generally, that they will recognize the validity of divorce and the remarrlnge of divorced persons only when adultery was the cause for which the divorce was obtained. Somo highly important considerations consider-ations are commonly overlooked In this connection. First, why should the ministers min-isters assume to recognize or not recog-hlze recog-hlze -a divorce legally obtained lri the courts? It Is entirely out of their sphere to pass on the legality of such divorces, or the status of the persons affected by the decree. All that la fixed by the court which passed on the case, and there is no power anywhere which has any right to go behind the Judgments of the courts and make objections to them. The ministers In taking the attitude thoy do, set themselves In defianqe of the laws. As a legal proposition, they have no right whatever-to do this. It is true that there Is diversity of law and usage between the different States In tho matter of divorce; courts in one State may refuse to recognize divorces granted in another State; but that Is a legal proposition, and each court Is within Its rights. At the same time, this diversity may give rise to dreadful scandals. As we have pointed out many times, a man who lives in New York City may marry In New York, and after a while get a divorce in Connecticut. Connecti-cut. But the New York courts may not recognize that divorce. He Is therefore fatlll married In New York; but he Is free to marry In Connecticut by virtue of the divorce he has' obtained in that State, and may do so. Thus he might havo two legal wives, ono In New York and one in Connecticut, and all the time bo doing business In Wall street, at no Inconvenience In-convenience lo himself, savo only the slight one Involved In acquiring a convenient con-venient residence In Connecticut for the purpose of gaining a standing In tho Connecticut courts. Again, he may tiro of both his wives and, going to New Jersey ah'd establishing establish-ing a technical legal residence there, get a divorce from his Connecticut wife, and marry again In New Jersey, and both the New York courts and the Connecticut Con-necticut courts might pronounce his New Jersey divorce void. Yet he would have a legal wife In each of three States. In fact, a few years ago, a New York paper gave a case In which it claimed that this very programme was carried out. . . Now, all this would not have any necessary nec-essary connection whatever with the' cause for tho divorce in any of tho Instances. In-stances. Adultery might or might not bo charged. The illustration goes merely mere-ly to the possible effect of the diversity which exists in the different States on the question of divorce. But In any event, it Is not competent for the clergy, or for any person or combination to challenge the decrees of the courts, In this matter of divorce any more than in any other court procedure. There is too much contempt for and disregard of the law abroad in the land, and the' ministers minis-ters should be the last to add to It. The truth is. that In this matter the Interference of the clergy Is a relic of the old union between church and state. It Is time that this (by no means the last)' vestige of that union should be severed; time that the ministers gave a hearty and loyal assent to the court decrees de-crees and obeyed them In letter and spirit. But it may be urged that the very conflicts con-flicts referred to make It difficult to carry out such obedience. That, however, how-ever, lsa, different question altogether from the proposition that the ministers have a right to determine on tho validity va-lidity of the decree as to the cause alleged al-leged In the complaint, and to annul so far as their relation to It goes, any decree de-cree that Is granted for a cause other than adultery. How would these ministers min-isters like It If the States should say that any person refusing to recognize the laws and court decrees to their full legal extent and bearing should be debarred de-barred from the right , to perform any marriages at all? Tho plea that might be urged In this behalf, as to the difference between laws and courts goes merely to the point that those differences ought to be abolished. The only way to abolish them Is for tho subject to be referred by Constitutional amendment to the General Government. And this would also put In shape to be dealt with, by law and by treaty, the. question of International marriages, which so far as this country Is concerned, con-cerned, entirely lack any home support In defense of rights, personal or property. prop-erty. So far from this being a matter to throw opprobrium upon Utah In case such airamendment wero proposed; this State could make Itself the admiration of the country by openly urging It. As when the MacGregors were In the Pretender's Pre-tender's army, arid It was thought best to set a guard around the homo of the great enemy of that clan; the chief announced an-nounced that no men but MacGregors should compose that guard, and the clan did that duty manfully and perfectly; 00 the Imputation that Utah Is In some .VSa v. 4S?.ljUS. hpr nrPXe.?Ion.s. to- be. dlori trusted In this matter, should be resent ed by the counter declaration that no State but Utah should lead In this great and needed social reform. |