DIVORCE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 44, 15 November 1907, Page 4

DIVORCE.

Or all legislation, that dealing with -the question of divorce is admittedly the most difficult. On the one hand are found those who declare that the marriage contract should not be ■ dissohed on any ground whatever, an 1 on the other hand there are manv who maintain that divorce cn reasonable and suffitient grounds makes for the .moral health of the people. It is admitted by most that the law as it stands in New Zealand to-day has made divorco too easy, and that an amending Act of the kind now before Parliament is urgently needed. Under the existing law all that is necessary to obtain divorce is collusion between the man and wife desiring the dissolution of the marriage tie, and their object can bo attained without difficulty and with little delay. 'A short separation, a refusal on the part of the wife to obey the order of the Court, and the contract is at an end. The tendency of such a law is naturally to diminish the importance of the marriage obligation, and so to sap the foundations of the home. A marriage entered into lightly and without due consideration can be as lig'jtly and easily dissolved. In this connection, the history of divorce in the United States is full of practical lessons. In some states dissolution of marriage was so easily obtained that the marriage bond came to be regarded in the lightest and most careless way. A man, by a residence of a few weeks in Utah or Dakota, could at one time obtain a divorce from a wife who had not even been the proceedings. The evilsj

of the system were so patent., and the results involved so much cruelty and suffering, that the whole of America united in condemning such legislation, and reforms were everywhere forccd upon the Legislatures. While this was so on the western side of the continent, the State oi South Carolina, for more than half a century, refused to grant divorce for any cause. The results of this rigid system appear to have been as bad as those of the lax legislation of other Slates. Divorce for sufjicent cause being refused, the sentiment of the community permitted the open disregard of the marriage bond. It is significant that the same legislature which refused to countenance divorce was actually compelled to pass an Act limiting the proportion of his estate which a man might leave to a woman who had occupied his home to the exclusion of his wife. It thus becomes clear that extreme legislation in the matter of marriage and divorce is unwise. To tie men and women down to a life of daily misery is as immoral as to allow a freedom which opens the door to license. The proposed amendment of the New Zealand law will avert a very real danger. It will re-establish the gravity and importance of the marriage contract without closing the door of hope to those who have the right to demand freedom from bonds which have become intolerable.