? -
VOL,. 10, NO 45.
ESTABLISHED IN 1886,
PRIGE FIVE CENTS
LINCOLN. NEB., SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 2 1895.
'east, that will be an effective protest
against the species of degradation that
the judges of our courts do not neem
disposed to restrict.
Divorce is in most stateB bo easily
entered is the post omcE at mxcoln obtainable that it has come to be an en-
as second-cl vss m vTTi.E courager of crime. Husbands and wives
tind in the modern divorce court a me
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY dium of exchange for partners or whom
nT thoy have tired, and tho exchange is ac
complished with so much facility that a
THE COURIER PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO. premium placed ...nrit.i infidelity.
The divorce court is really a mart where
Onico 217 North Eleventh St. tho w;fe l)rig8 ., husband who no longer
Toltrikrirvp ?R4 pleases her fancy, and exchanges him as
" she would an old lamp, for a new one,
" where tho husband, who wants a part-
W. MORTON SMITH Editor and Mnnn?er morn in nrpnril with his latest
SARAH B. HARRIS Associate Editor ncr nloro ,n '-l-OrU Willi U1S idltsi
WILLA GATHER Associate Editor mood, drags his wife who is no longer
new, and procures an official license to
Subscription Rates-In Advance. barter-for one more to his liking. Tho
r. -o rm divorce court, as it exists in Lancaster
Per annum eJ.UU in .- , .
Six monhs 1.00 county, and in nearly all sections of the
Three months 50 country, makes a mockery of the holy
One month 20 sacrament of marriage. The church
Singlocopies binds together "until death do part."
-t- Tho divorce court tempts men and
S'?)? women to oreaK tneir vows, ino min
ister says, "bo faithful each to the
ORSFRVATIONS 0ner' The judge of the divorce court
says, "leave your iiusuanu or your who
if you are not suited or have a later
fnFiv nnd nnmn to mt fififl rrftt n nprmit
The daily newspapers are constantly to try it over again Th;8 ;B not exag
casting about for "reforms" to advocate. geration. j believe an investigation
In nine cases out of ten they pass by wouI(J proV(J that in fif,y per cent of tho
those things that should be taken up recent divorce caseB ia th;8 COUnty
and discussed, and content themselves euher the husband or the wife was pre
with puerile vaporings on subjects bo parjng to re-marry at the time the suit
remote that tho people have utterly no waB brought, and that proceedings were
interest in them. The Journal, for ic- ;n8tjtuted for that purpose,
stance, discusses "transatlantic sub- .
jecte," and pi ads for reform in English A p LeisB a merchant in this city,
politics, and leaves unnoticed abuses becoming infatuated with a young
and wrongs right at its door that have a woman ; h;8 employ, prevailed upon
vital interest for its constituency. But h;B wif(J to obtain a divorce, represent
ee Journal would much rather write ing to her that he would continue to
leaders about Englishmen or Portugese 8Upport her. September 23 a divorce
than talk about things and people here waB grantet
at home. There is no danger of offend- .
ing the Englishmen and the Portugese Sundav-B journai contained the fol
DiscuBsing home affairs might make lowing announcement:
somebody angry. The JournaTs policy, A p Le;B8 and Miss Lou Harlow
as is well known, is conciliation. were married by Mr. Cook, justice of
the peace, in the parlors of the Grand
hotel, Council Bluffs, la., October 26.
There is one shameful practice that
calls for the attention of all who are in
terested in the welfare of humanity, the
morality of society. This may let the
Journal out. But it might do some
thing, and that active afternoon paper,
the Xeics surely it could tind no bet
ter outlet for the righteous indignation
it is so fond of exploding. I refer to the
vicious abuse of the law governing
divorce. The Courier has on many
occasions voiced the feeling of piotest
and indignation that all proper-minded
persons feel at the divorce outrages that
are daily committed in this state, in
Lincoln. Some recent happenings in
this city and elsewhere serve to bring
the subject to public attention once
more, and I hope it may be possible to
awaken a sentiment, in this city at
The divorce, though asked for by Mrs.
Leiss, was prompted by Leiss for the
sole purpose of enabling him to marry
again. A wife is deserted for a new
favorite and left helpless and alone.
And the courts encourage this sort of
thing. The Leiss incident is only one
of a large number.
In the Journal of Tuesday appeared
the following from the Owassa,
(Mich) Evening Argus, of October 24:
Last evening Mrs Cora Wbited was
married to Lawrence P. Gould at the
residence of the bride's father, William
Richards, on North Mulberry street. No
guests but the family witnessed the
ceremony, which was performed by Rev.
W. B. Matteson.
Gould is the man who was divorced
from his wife within a couple of months,
aim left this city under a cloud.
There are many uatcs within recall
where re-marriHgo has followed with
in a month, and often in a few dajs.
The law in this state prohibits a di
vorcee to re-marry until nix months have
elapsed since the granting of the di
vorce. But it is an easy mutter to avoid
the law. All that is necessary is to go
to an adjoining Htat'i. In commerce it
is not ahvuB permissible for a person to
avoid the intent of tho law by resorting
to a process in another state; but in this
matter of divorce and re marriage a
person may laugh at the law by simply
passing tho boundary line of the state.
In New York tho court in granting di
vorces frequently imposes a prohibition
against re-marr age for a term of
jears. Tho divorcee at once goes into
another state and marries again, setting
in detianco the court's decree.
Tho other day Amelie Rives Chanter
got a divorce from her husband because
they were not able to "accommodato
themselves to each other." It was com
mon report that tho recent Vandcrbilt
divorce had for ono of its objects the
speedy re marriage of one of the parties,
a report that may bo speedily confirmed.
One day last week Mabel Yznaga was
divorced from her husband, the decree
being secured in South Dakota. The
press dispatches throw the following
light on this case:
In 1893 rumors came from across the
the water that tho Yznagas were not
happy together. But these were only
rumors, and though people looked wise
and shrugged their shoulders, that was
all that could be said until February,
1894, when Mabel arrived in this coun
try, leaving her husband in Rome. This
was "confirmation strong as holy writ,"
and the gossipb were delighted. When
the season came she wento to Newport,
and thero met Count Bela Zichy, jr., a
Hungarian nobleman, aged 27 years,
whom nature has favored freely. They
were much together during the season,
became deeply attached to each other,
and, according to rumor, at the close of
the season she informed her husband of
her tender feeling toward the youi.g
foreigner and suggested to him that in
view of this fact, and the other ini ident
that his company had become distaste
ful to her, they could not live together
longer. That being the case, this guile
less young society queen added naively
that it would be a good idea for him to
allow her to procure a divorce. Mr.
Yznapa, being somewhat of the world
worldly, agreed to this, it is said, and
even gave assurance that he would make
no opposition to any suit with that ob
ject in view which she might institute.
It is said that Count Zichy was with
Mrs. Yznaga in Yankton during the re
quired six months residence, under an
assumed name.
Mrs. Langtry is getting a divorce for
tho avowed purpose of marrying Sir
Robert Peel.
And here is an interesting case:
Laco.n, III., Oct. 25. Mr. and Mrs.
Leroy Strawn of La con, something like
twenty throo or twenty-four years ago,
were man ied in this city, and lived
happily together for a number of years.
Then they quarreled over some trifling
matter and were divorced. As time
passed tho two remembered each othor'H
better qualities. Leroy made love to
his former wi'e. was accepted, and after
a short courtship the two were made
one again. Then ciiinu another misun
derstanding, followed by a second di
vorce, and now thoy have been married
for the third time. Tho groom is 19
ami the bride l.'l earsold.
Tho list might be extended indefinite
ly. If this sort of thing is to continue
the marriage rite might about as well
bo abaudored altogether. When hus
bands and wives changs partners at
will, marry and ro marry, get divorced
because they cannot accommodato
themselves to each other, go into court
with a divorce petition in ono hand and
a new candidate for matrimonial favor
in the other, it seems to mo that a con
dition closely approaching the "freo
love," advocated by Victoria Woodhull
is at hand. Both tho marriage and tho
divorce are a mockery. Either can be
so readily obtained that ties aro disre
garded, and men and women ar en
couraged in viciousness.
In this county thero is absolutely no
bar interposed to these marital
jugglers. Tho judge receives an appli
cation for divorce one minute and
writes tho decree in tho next. Thero is
no investigation, no delay. And the
vicious are eager to take advantage of
tho privileges or licenses hero dispensed.
Tho court becomes an enemy to tho
marriage state, a promoter of infidelity,
an instrument for tho furtherance of
immorality. There is urgent need of a
revision of tho divorce law, and a change
in judicial practice. This is ono of the
most important subjects now before tho
people, and it deserves prompt attention.
The ministers, like the newspapers, are
on the lookout for something to reform,
and 1 would suggest that they take up
this subject of divorce. Tho churches
could do a good deal in arousing senti
ment on this question.
Since the death of ex-United States
Senator C. II. Van Wyck. he has been
generally eulogized by the press, repub
lican papers as well as those of popu
listic inclinations paying tribute to this
remarkable man. Within the last two
years Van Wyck was made the BUbject
of numerous discussions in The
Courier, and despite the flattering re
marks now made upon him by other re
publican newspapers I am not disposed
to recall anything that has been eaid in
these columns. Death did not change
the character of this man. He had
many good qualities. He was open
hearted, generous, benevolent, and to a
certain extent, patriotic, but he was an
arrant demogogue. In late years es
pecially, he catered to popular preju
dices and made a generally ridiculous
exhibition of himself. Van Wyck in
his long career rendered valuable ter-
