MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1756, 22 May 1913, Page 4

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.

The procession of divorce cases in tho Auckland and Wellington Courts during the past few days comes as an unwelcome reminder of one of the unpleasant features of modern life. When, for- instance, a Judge dissolves a dozen marriages in a day, as happened in Wellington on Monday last, it is no wonder that there is a feeling in the community that the facilities for divorce are very great. These matrimonial cases always appear to excite the interest of a certain class of people who throng the Courts greedily listening to the sordid details of the evidence,- while they might be better employed ekewhere. During the hearing of a recent case a section of these onlookers, showed Punic levity at certain statements by a witness, which - led Mn. Justice Edwards, who was presiding, io point, out that although Parliament had given power for divorce cases to be heard in private, ho did not believe in adopting that course, but if the Court was to be turned into a place of public amusement he, would have it cleared, allowing only the newspaper representatives to remain. A Divorce Court, he added, was not an amusing place; it- was a very sad place. This very proper rebuke served its purpose for the moment at

least. When it ie borne in mind that marriage and the family are the foundations on which society has been built, a person who can get enjoyment out of the proceedings ot our Divorce Courts must have a pitifully distorted sense of humour. Still, we believe Mr. Justice Edwards is right in his declaration in favour of the open Court. The reasons for closing tho doors in any particular case should be very strong indeed Whatever the evils of publicity may be, the evils of secret Courts arc infinitely greater. Though New Zealand has gone quite far enough in tho way of granting facilities for divorce, other countries, such as France and the United States, have gone much further. There is, however, a ana growing movement in the United States in the direction 01 reforming the divorce laws with the object of doing away with some of the scandals that at present exist to the disgust of all decent _ people. Leading modem sociologists arc pointing out that easy divorcc is a grave danger to the State. Approaching the matter purely from this viewpoint, Dr. Ciiatterton-Hili, tells us- that the stability and cohesion of society is conditioned by the stability and cohesion of family life, and that marriage is a social institution which exists primarily for the benefit of society, and only secondarily for the benefit of the individual. The writer goes on :•> say that the rupture of marriage can bo considered profitable only trow tho point of view of the egotistical interests of the individual. It is a direct encouragement to the individual to cvado responsibilities which ho lias solemnly taken upon himself. It is tapping the foundations ot tiio great and unique school of socuil training that tho, family constitutes. It is permitting tho individual to shirs his duties and to escape the difficulties that lie must needs learn to support it ho is to become a citizen in the true senso ot the word.

There can be no doubt that the knowledge that divorce is easily obtain abie tends to lessen the sense ot responsibility ' that ought to bo associated with marriage. J.t is this absence of the element of seriousness in so many cases which po= siblo such a state of alfairs as is revealed in an article which appeared in yesterday's issue on "trial marriages."' Justice Cohalan has laid it clown quite clearly that "the present law in New York .State permus a girl who marries under the age ot eighteen with the consent ot her parents, and leaves her husband bifore she attains that age, to come into Court and, as a matter ot course, obtain a decree of annulment." American girls, we- arc told, are said to love a runaway mate i, and the excitement of climbing down an unnecessary rope ladder or driving a motor-car to some town near by and there rousing from his slumbers an official competent to pronounce them man and wife appeals irresistibly to many youthful imaginations. The sequel to such uniojs is not unusually an application to the Courts to annul the marriage, liven in cases in which the parents gave their consent the Courts have no recourse but to grant tho desired annulment.

Dr. F. AV. Foerster, special lecturer in ethics and psychology at th,: University of Zurich, is quite as em phatic as Dr. Ciiatterton-Hill in advocating a return to a more con servative position in regard to marriage und divorce, and, strangely enough, the chief supporter of the "spurious freedom" against which he directs a great deal of his criticism is a woman —Ellen Key, a Swedish writer. Dr. Foerster contends that the family is "the centie of all human training for t-he social life—that is, for responsibility, sympathy, sc!lf-control, mutual toleration, and mutual education." And it fills this ccntral place precisely becausc the bond of marriage is lifelong and indissoluble. The great idea of mutual responsibility would, he says, disappear from our life if the most intimate of all human relationships came to be regulated by the principle of "short notice, as iii it were a mere business contraci.. However, human nature is far from perfect, and though life-long permancnce is no doubt the true ideal of marriage, yet the State must provide for the many exceptional eases. In other words, divorce laws are a necessary evil; but unless they arc drawn up and administered with great caution they must eventually lead to social disintegration. Dr. Foerster admits that there may be very deep and serious reasons for separation, and he_ docs not hold that "civil law, with its iron compulsion, ought to make divorce too difficult and force tho indissolubility of-wcdlock on those who have lost all touch with a deeper religious _ vie r» of life. The State ought to insist on certain intervals, and place certain restrictions on frivolity_ and changeableness—but 'the bodies should uphold indissolubility, which has sprung from their deepest convictions." These arc the views of a distinguished student of social questions in England, America, and Germany, .and they are valuable bath on account of their own reasonableness and as showing the tendency of an influential section ol modern thinkers in reference to this phase of sociology. The opinions of such authorities as Dr. Foerster an I Dr. Chatterton-Hill deserve the special attention of those people in New Zealand and elsewhere who do not realise the danger of tampering with tho very foundations on which society rests.