Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/638

 SOME NEEDED REFORMS IN DIVORCE LEGISLATION insisting that it is a sin to satisfy such "fickle desires;" the former believing that these desires are the result of violations of Nature's laws over which Legislation and Religion have no control. Now, what should be the nature of the divorce legislation of the future? If the object of legislation is to benefit the individual and the state, then it must necessarily be along rationalistic lines; if it is to foster ecclesiastical dogma then, of course, let there be no divorce or, if there be, let the grounds therefor be of such fictious character as may be agreed upon. The present system is a typical illustration. Members of the medical profession are, as a class, the best qualified to speak from experience concerning the primary causes for divorce. They usually know the rea sons while the Courts only hear of the re sults. In an endeavor to ascertain as general an opinion of the profession as pos sible, several queries were recently sent to physicians throughout the United States, without distinction as to school, city, or country. A wide circulation of the replies received would create more sentiment in favor of reform legislation than any muck raking achievement of modern times. A summary of the replies to some of the queries will, however, answer the purposes of this paper. In reply to the query as to what were the principal primary causes for divorce, the answers of eighty-nine per cent of those who replied may be generally expressed as being "improper marriages and unnatural marital conditions." These conditions, it is claimed, are often pathological and the results of ignorance, indiscretion, incorrect modes of living, etc. The other eleven per cent did not answer this question, or replied that they did not desire to express an opinion. The want of proper instruction seems to be a most important factor, as ninety-seven per cent of the replies expressed opinions that education in sexual matters would over

599

come, at least to a large extent, the evils of improper marriages and unnatural condi tions. Only three per cent doubted this. The character of the instruction is, of course, of primary importance, for a dis tinction must always be recognized between moral and purely intellectual education. The latter would be of but little value, as piety, virtue, and self-control are not the constant attendants of learning or great gifts of genius; while the influences of the former would, if properly taught, prove of inestimable value to the individual, the family, and to society at large. The unreasonableness and injustice of our past and present divorce legislation is clearly seen when we understand that no matter what the real causes are which prompt married people to separate, it is necessary for one of them to commit a statutory offense, and in many states a crime, before a Court of Equity can take cognizance of a prayer for relief. To what extent these conditions tend to foster crime and disre gard for law, would be an interesting subject for investigation. But that a reform as to statutory causes would be of advan tage to the individual and to society is obvious, for ninety-two per cent of the physicians who replied to this query recom mended that divorces be granted whenever pathological and psychopathical states, such as accompany or create abnormal sexual conditions, exist. Some few would make a distinction as to certain states when there were children. Of the remainder of those who responded, six per cent did not so rec ommend, and two per cent did not express an opinion. Other investigations seem to sustain these opinions. For if divorces are the result of the conditions mentioned, we would expect to find many, if riot most, of these condi tions manifest soon after marriage, and the more serious the conditions the shorter would be the duration of married life. James Bryce is authority for the statement that in one-half of the cases in the United