Reno - a Book of Short Stories and Information Part 11

The question then: "Is divorce ever right?" must be answered in the affirmative.

Why should two persons, who find after reasonable trial that they have made a mistake, and that they are wholly unsuited for each other, physically, morally and intellectually, be compelled to live together?

What is at first mutual indifference, ripens gradually into loathing and hatred. Such conditions bring into the world innocent children, begotten not of love, as marriage presupposes, but of disgust, hatred, l.u.s.t and incompatibility. Is it not a fact, established by the most reliable medical authorities and celebrated criminologists, that crime is fostered in the minds of children begotten of inharmonious relationship?

We can never fathom the depth of untold sorrow brought about by unfortunate marriages, where there is no way to annul them. This burden upon mankind has resulted in countless desertions, felonies, drunkenness, murders and suicides.

"In the daytime when she moved about me, In the night, when she was sleeping at my side,-- I was wearied, I was wearied of her presence.

Day by day and night by night I grew to hate her-- Would G.o.d that she or I had died!"

--Kipling.

There is no stronger plea for divorce than hatred; all things mentally, morally and physically bad originate from hatred.

I clipped the following from the Pall Mall Gazette of London, England, of May 2oth, 1920:

EASY DIVORCE

Opinions of the Typical Englishman To the Editor of the Pall Mall Gazette,

"Sir:-If it is not too late to answer some of the arguments brought to bear on 'Easy Divorce,' as Lady Beecham calls it, or, as I prefer to call it, the proposed equalisation of the Divorce Laws on which she wrote recently, I would like to know how far the sentiments of the 'Typical Englishman' mentioned in the article are known to Lady Beecham.

"Among many great men she mentions Gladstone. Now, his opinion on the subject is surely well known, as in 1857 he supported an amendment moved by Mr. H. Drummond that infidelity alone on the part of a husband should ent.i.tle the wife to the dissolution of the marriage.

Gladstone's speech was, I believe, an earnest attack upon the injustice of the Divorce Bill to women.

"An able advocate, Sir Charles Russell, once described the action of a man whose wife was seeking a divorce from him in the following strong terms: 'This was not a case of mere vulgar acts of infidelity, but it was that of a man whose continued course of conduct, consistent only in its profligacy and heartlessness, had brought the wife into a condition by which the marriage tie had become a galling chain.'

"If the conduct of the respondent did not amount to legal cruelty, the law was in an anomalous state, and did emphasize in a marked manner the inequality which existed in the laws relating to these matters between men and women.

"George Eliot once wrote: 'These things are often unknown to the world; for there is much pain that is quite noiseless, and vibrations that make human agonies are often a mere whisper in the roar of hurrying existence."

"Thackeray in 'The Newcomes' speaks of 'matrimonial crimes where the woman is not felled by the actual fist, though she staggers and sinks under the blows quite as cruel and effectual, where with old wounds still unhealed, she strives to hide under a smiling face to the world.'

"How anyone can find it in their heart to state that incurable insanity should not be ground for divorce is inexplicable to me; but as it is well known that partial insanity even is not, and I know of an instance of a man who went twice into an asylum and came back twice to his wife, the poor woman bearing him on each occasion another child. Even this is not a ground for divorce. The Cruelty in refusing the injured person her freedom seems almost incredible."

The first wrong step between young people is impossible to avoid, since during courtship both wear masks, each trying to impress the other that he or she is a paragon of all virtues. The net result is, that the truth often becomes a horrible revelation immediately after the wedding ceremony. Unhappy and mismated marriages, without means of rectification, are the curse of civilization, the living, gnawing cancer of society.

In 1913, Nevada, under the lash of exaggerated newspaper notoriety, enacted a law changing the period of residence for the plaintiff in divorce actions from six months to one year. From Nevada's territorial existence down to that time it had been six months.

It is a matter of history that Nevada extended to the world inducements to go to her spa.r.s.ely settled lands, in the way of liberal legislation and short periods of residence to acquire rights of full citizenship-franchise included. A man becomes, under Nevada laws, a full fledged citizen and voter at the end of six months. To him is extended every privilege of government and from him is exacted every obligation of government, and the fact that at the end of six months he can bring an action for divorce is a consequence of these laws, and not--as is often thought--their purpose.

Consequently, changing the law on the point of one of its principles instead of equally on all was irrational and illogical. Small wonder, therefore, that in 1915 the people, acting through their legislators and Governor, restored the period of residence in action for divorce to six months. It is now in strict conformity with their other laws, and with the same rights prescribed by them. Nevada's inhabitants have rescinded their act of 1914, by which they allowed immigrants and citizens to be robbed of a valuable right. The overwhelming vote of the legislature and approval of the bill by the Governor clearly shows the public opinion upon the subject. If it be right to commence action for divorce in one year, then it is right in six months. Length of period of residence is not a moral question. In this act the people of Nevada believe that they are morally and legally right, and that they are materially helping the progress of humanity.

It is often supposed that one can secure a divorce in Reno without having to present grounds or causes for it. Let me hasten to disillusion such "idealists." As mentioned above, there are seven causes for divorce in this State, any one of which in the eyes of the liberal Nevada law, is sufficient justification for a dissolution of marriage.

A fact which perhaps is not generally known is that one may leave the state temporarily any time after establishing a residence, provided, however, that the time during which one has been absent, is eventually "made up," that is; the actual presence in the state and county must amount to six months.

In one divorce case at which I was present,--Mrs. Jones versus Mr.

Jones--, the questions to a six months' resident were as follows:

Q. Are you the plaintiff in this action?

Q. What relation does Mr. Jones bear to you?

Q. When were you married?

Q. Where were you married? Q. Are there any children of this marriage?

Q. It is stated in the complaint that since your marriage to Mr. Jones he has been guilty of habitual gross drunkenness, which he has contracted since the marriage. Will you please state to the court the circ.u.mstances in regard to his acts of habitual drunkenness?

Q. Have his acts of habitual gross drunkenness incapacitated him from contributing his support to the family?

Q. What effect have his habits of gross habitual drunkenness had upon his performing his part of the marital relations?

Q. Please refer to page 5 paragraph--of your complaint and read it as to your reasons for coming to Reno, Nevada.

Q. When did you come to the Count; of Washoe, State of Nevada?

Q. Where have you been residing since you came to Reno, Nevada?

Q. Have you been engaged in any occupation or profession during your residence in Reno, Nevada?

Q. What is your intention in regard to your continuing your residence in the State of Nevada?

Q. What was your former name?

Q. Do you desire to be restored to your former name for business and property reasons?

Q. It is stated in the complaint as a second cause of action that Mr.

Jones for more than one year last past has failed, neglected and refused to provide you with the common necessities of life. Please state, if any, what provisions he has made for your support and how he has supported you, if at all. Q. It is stated in the complaint that he has been during all the said time and is now an able-bodied, talented man, and has been and is now in receipt of liberal salaries for his services. Please state to the court what the facts are in regard to this.

Q. Has his failure to provide you with the common necessities of life been the result of poverty or sickness and could he have avoided such failure by ordinary industry?

Q. Please state how you have supported yourself.

Q. It is stated in the complaint as a third cause of action that Mr.

Jones has been guilty of extreme cruelty to you in the State of Texas and in the State of New York. Please state to the court what his treatment has been to you in the way of using vulgar language to you and calling you vile names.

Q. What occurred at New York City on or about May, 1919, in regard to the conduct of the defendant, in regard to his father and his coming to the hotel in a condition of intoxication.

Q. It is stated that at Waco, Texas, the defendant would drink and keep you awake until a late hour in the morning. Please state to the court the circ.u.mstances of his conduct.

Q. What occurred during the winter of 1919 at New York City in regard to Mr. Jones flourishing a loaded revolver and threatening to kill you?

Q. What effect did his treatment of you have upon your being compelled to leave him?

Q. What have you done in regard to endeavoring to persuade Mr. Jones to cease his excessive use of intoxicating liquors, his exhibition of ugly conduct, his vile language, to induce him to resume a normal condition of conduct and treat you with kindness?

Q. What effect, if any, has his habitual gross drunkenness and extreme cruelty--to you had upon your happiness and health, and how has it affected you mentally and physically?