Something Unusual

The statute in such case made and provided has so tied the hands of our circuit judges that it is seldom in their power to deny a divorce. There are few cases where the application is contested, and in all such instances the court is powerless, but is obliged to obey the law and grant the decree asked for. In view of that fact the following opinión of Judge Kinne, denying a divorce in the case of Krause vs. Krause, on trial in this circuit last week, is of more than ordinary interest, and the language of the document such that it will attract widespread attention. The opinión is given in f uil, as follows : The Circuit Court for the County of Washtenaw. In Chancery. Caroline Krause vs. Caleb Krause. The bill in this case is filed to obtain a Decree of Divorce from the bonds of matrimony. This cause presents an extraordinary record, and in my opinión, it demands more than the ordinary consideración. These parties were first rnarried in 1863, in this county. They have five children, whose ages range from 27 to 9. During this period, in this county, they have been married to each other, three times, and this is their fourth bill for a Divorce. The Decrees of Divorce, hitherto granted, have been based upon substantially the same allegations of cruelty as those now presented, they do not pertain to the same periods of time, but they are the same in character. The complainant has not been deceived by the defendant. No new developments appear, but simply repetitions of their earlier troubles, which perhaps have increased in intensity by reason of experience. In short, when they have inutually been iuclined to courtship, they have engaged in that amusement, then married, and when weary of that rela-' tion, have sought relief in divorce. Again when life apart became irksome, they have reunited, and thus this domestic farce has reached its present status. The question is presented, whether or not, upon such a record as this, the complainant ought to receive any relief. In my opinión, it is a sad commentarv upon the legislation of this state, that such a condition of things, as this record exhibits, is possible witnin our borders. Divorce under certain conditions, is undoubtedly moral, lawful and wise, but in my opinión, the public good demands, that four-fifths of the decrees granted, should never be entertained. Courts, however, with our present legislation, are powerless to arrest this alarming social evil. As a rule, the case is so presented that the court has no discretion or option in the matter. It needs no dissertation to prove that the fare and prosperity of this commonwealth, dependa priniarily uponthe purity, the saoredness, and the permanence of" the marriage relation. Facility to obtain divorce causes parties to enter that most sacred of all human relations without due thought, and as it would seein in many cases, with no care or expectation for itsperpetuity. Among the better classes of society, there is undoubtedly a healthy public sentiment upon this question, but it does not reach the halls of legislation, or those classes upon whom moral obligationa hang lightly. In brief, this conceded rightof divorce, ia to-day, most shamelessly abused, and if this abuse is to increase or continue, public iuterests demand that it be abrogated except on scriptural grounds. So far as the pending case is concerned, her counsel insist that she has brought herself within the statute, and that this court has no option but to pronounce the decree of divorce. Can it be possible that the legislature ever contemplated the existence of such a record as is here presented? that husband and wife may marry, quarrel, separate and remarry at their mere caprice, and receive the assistance and approval of courts ? Is it expected that courts are to expend their labors in such investigations ? It is said that a court, is aplace where justice is judicially administered ? If the counsel for complainant is right in this case, courts are a inockery and traversty on justice. I am not aware of any precedent to guide me in this case. I íiave no hesitation to créate one, that shall be good within this court until reversed by the appellate tribunal. shall assume that a court possesses the power to maintain its self respect, to prntect itselffrom ridicule and disgrace, and that it has the inherent right to preserve its own integriiy. It is the intention of this decree to instruct the complainant that the marital bond is something more than a mere brute conjugation of the parties, that it should be assumed with the utmost consideration and solemnity, and that when once established, under all ordinary circumstances it remains indissoluble. , She is further instructed that she has more than once sought the interposition oí this court, and in the exeroise of its equitable powers, she has been released trom her marital obligations, that with a full knowledge of all the responsibilities of the future, she has again deliberately taken upon herself these same ties and responsibilities, that she has exhausted her remedies in this court and that she will not now be heard to complain of the burdens of a contract of marriage, which she assumed at her peril. In their moral and legal aspect, these proceedings are contemptuous to the dignity of this court. The relief sought will be denied, and this court expresses its deep regret at its infibility to commit these parties to a reformatory during their natural lives. March 30, 1891.