DIVORCE CASES.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 11997, 4 September 1909, Page 3

DIVORCE CASES.

SHOULD PUBLICATION BE ABOLISHED i "I want to express my concurrence with my uoble friend (Lord Gorcll) in another matter. .-,..j, . He said that thero ought to bo an end to tho publication ot proceedings in tho Divorce Court. I thoroughly and heartily agree with him. ... It seems to me strange that anybody should think tnat tiiere should be any compensation for the maes of dirty stutt which jou see constantly publislicd in some newspapers, whicii arc a disgrace to journalism."—Tho Lord Chancellor, in tho House of Lords. The ex-President of tho Divorce Court has been agitating in tho House of Lords for drastic reform in the'law relating to divorce, and endeavouring, none too boon, tocequahsc the law for rich and poor by facilitating the granting of divorce decrees in place of separation orders among tho poor who may need them. He hopes thus to lessen tho number of separation orders granted annually, which at the present time amounts to no less than 7000 per annum.

It is not my intention to deal hero with the. question of divorce in its relation to judicial separation—which means compulsory celibacy—for I hare done, .that elsewhere oh previous occasions. In the followins lines I wish merely to emphasise a point bearing directly upon the subject of divorce, a point that is. attracting more and more, attentioni and giving rise to a great deal of private ,controversy, a point upon which I believe I am right in saying that tbo ex-President holds strong views:— ; ..Ought we, or ought wo not, to allow the country to bo flooded week by week, almost cfey by day, with details of divorce .evidence 1 that is directly tending to increase the number of petitioners for divorce and separation, to heighten the average of crime, and to spread lunacy? ■'.:■'■, "' WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS. Of course the journals that feed their readers' mainly on Divorce' Court, garbage will tell you, it you broach" the supject, that: : v ■ . The public wants it, and the public likes it. v , .The public—by which I mean the masses—doesn't want it and doesn't like it. The public reads it because it must read' something, and the particular branch of the.public to >hich 1 now more especially refer—the Sunday Morning l'uouc, as it;is sometimes: called—is given so little else to read that it has to fall back upon this stuff. A quixotic idea? 1. think not. c-u - - cumstances necessitate my travelling a great deal, and my mixing largely wun men. - and women of many. Uitt'creiit grades, and conditions, .ami not once, or twice, but many times, men and women of what we smugly call the "lower .classes,": have said to me quite on their .'own initiative, aiid in a tone of weariness: "Can't you newspaper people give us, for a change, something better to read every Sunday than all this faiths'" There arc men who will assure you that the publication of such evidence serves as'"a wholesome deterrent"' —■ they imply, that is to say, that there are married people who, if they were not encouraged to batten on this ottal and fill their thoughts with the pictures the semiprurient descriptions conjuro up there, .would themselves Jiasten .to sever their matrimonial knot!

That is the' kiud of argument that leads to the. assertion that men and women would,' if divorce were . made easier, rush into matrimony more recklessly than they already do —as though any man (or woman), other than an adventurer, ever' contemplated on his wedding day the possibility of his being some day divorced! There are still others who delude themselves into believing that publicity forms part of the punishment of divorce. Had these good people ever been present during a- divorce trial they would know that the paSi of publicity is suffered wholly by the usually innocent petitioner. I have had occasion to attend a goodly number of divorce trials, but have never as yet seen a respondent who apparently cared a fig what the newspapers said about him, or her. Indeed, it is an indisputable fact that to -certain temperaments the notoriety obtained by appearing in a divorce suit, even as co-respondent, proves singularly attractive. So fully is this recognised in France, that in 1884 a law was passed there which made illegal the "reproduction" of divorce proceedings. And yet the French "lower orders" find that in spite of their being deprived of the feast of nastiness so dear to some of one's confreres over here, they are able to live in comparative happiness.

-AN INCteN,TiyiS TO GRIME. , "But," ttio'question may bo asked, "docs the publication of divorce evidence really do harm ? Or is it merely one of those:' abuses ' that may not do good, but that, oil the other hand, docs no evil?" 1 havo already said that the publication of details hinting as plainly as it is possible to do —without: overstepping tho bbrder-Hno of legality-r----at vice and. vicious practices, leads directly to increase in the number, of petitions for divorce,, increases with a leap every time a cause exceptionally celebre lias just been tried in the divorce court; in the same way that when a murder or suicide has been committed under peculiarly revolting 1 and wide publicity lias been accorded to all details, a similar crime will be committed soon afterwards almost iii the. same *aj„ aiid sometimes several such crimes.' .. As to whether or no the publication of divorce evidence leads to increase in crimes of • different kinds, 1 would ask the reader to obtain the opinion of any High.Court Judge; or oi ans. police court missionary. These are .alt' men of the world who live with, their, eyes open, are uninfluenced by ; public opinion, have a broad horison, and are free from cant." .-..;.. Concerning the question;_ 0f,.,., the* spread of lunacy diving to absorption ox noxious accounts ot tho doings of respndents arid co-re&pondents, here Us the opinion of One of the best known of our mental specialists:— - "I believe (he writes) that a -.very great deal of real harm is done by publishing reports that irt fact are only slightly veiled salacious verbal' pfc--tures of the Secret doings of tnese people (respondents ariu co-rcsponr ucrits in divorce suite) ~."..'.'. ~, ?.. - "if 1 had power i*^voiiildfqrpid ; any but the most perfunctory accounts of wnat conies out in cvicmfico in the divorco court to be pubusiled in neivspaper Arrets. .'. . arid-there i4.uo doubt that 'iriUCh of tne"" increasing lunacy or ttHjiy that is so; deplorable is. attributable to too constant reading or" tiieoo narr;ii|ites f got Jfilnmprauty, though obviouSljr At ■ ;fc; not gossiDle actually to uacoJtiio JjMeoßling, t>| jtuo intellect to ing; tangibler t«;tahb 'hold.;or cases. "—'..'■ ,• '■ ..-'■'.■;""'-'■' ' * '•i could writo at much greater length upon this subjfect upori which you nave toVftUestwu- iiic, but 1 8lio«Id be compelled give facts that it would ; bo «niio%»blo "Hut in cdnglusioh I all who r have studfcsjl closely .tlio aut*tiori " l of rhind deeadencOi umimj- *£"» with mo thatithe leas aa*d, im Jttofo ospeciallyttie lew ttot woticisittjin ito> the, nioro the : Now that tho e*-KrWd*ijt MO™ Divorce Court is ehdoavounnit trifll alt power at his cbmmand to abblish cdmnulsory celibacy* dfe at least to fee* J»e law relating to it 3d that, the number of ?ietims f *ill be ■corißiderably lessened, it. Id sincerely M be hdpedthat Ko wilt tush the «*«s » htt'c further by sfibiuHtirtg tetf shUioil- to abolish the publicdtioh of diVbrce 3»r6Tho proposal will at! first be nJet { wjth frantic proposal for an excellent, lias Mot been from the time when the translation of tile Bible was first nttotedj'tfotfn to the comparatively recent dates when it tvas first ruggestod that" insane ,4iersdfls should no longer be exposed -to j be jeered at by their* fellows, and then that public eiecuttohS should be abolished? *] V ~; L-i There are, 1 however, many tlKfusarids of clear-thinking people -fat ttm ybuhtrv, more particularly among; parents, who would hail with, acclamation tile disappearance of.a great deal, of Divorce Court filth that now pollutes CCTtain ° fOUrJd,rfh B lB isiLTOZlWt/