too rapidly, runaway matches and hasty marriages are made passible if legal restraint is not thrown around young people, and much misery, unhappiness and shame will result. There may be much in this contention. For the moment we will step backward and scan the pages of history once more and see what we learn from its chronicles.

It is recorded that in the simple ages of the Republic of Rome, its people boasted that for a period of five hundred years Roman society had not been scandalized by a single divorce. It is said that under the Republic, the women of Rome were possessed of a character for modesty and virtue without a parallel in any other primitive race. At that time the maiden of Rome and her lover were taught from childhood the sacredness of sex. They freely intermingled and wooed and won their mates much as young people do in our own time. The marriage was exceedingly informal, but the vows then exchanged were religiously kept, making the home life of the Roman honorable and the family ties sacred and lasting. The same may be said of the ancient Germans. They too had homely and simple notions about ceremonies on entering the marriage relation. Marriage and home seemed to be the climax of their lives. They also courted and loved and were drawn into union by ties of affection. They were an innocent, guileless people, chaste and honorable, and the ties of marriage were lasting, not to be broken, as divorce was practically unknown.

In Rome under the Empire there seems to have been a change from the simplicity practiced so long under the Republic. This change was not sudden, but was imperceptibly blended into the social conditions of the earlier and later civilization of the great Roman state. Under the Empire of Rome, it seems the old and simple methods of marital union were abandoned and much pomp and ceremony introduced in its stead, ten witnesses were required to hear the vows of the parties, to witness the signing of the contract and to record their personal testimony of the event. Innumerable statutory safe guards hedged in the contracting parties and the ceremonies were elaborate. Yet divorces were common under the Empire, licentiousness ran riot and disgrace overwhelmed the domestic life of the Roman people. While under the Republic

divorces were almost unknown, under the Empire it is said even the women broke the marital tie with impunity. It is recorded that one woman had eight husbands all legally enough within a period of five years. Another continued her separations until her list of husbands reached twenty-three, and the last one on her list had himself had twenty-one legal wives. It is fair to say, that the morals of the people under the Empire were far inferior to what they were in the earlier days of the Republic, and it is also fair to say that this state of society was not caused by the stringency of the statutes enacted by her law-makers on the subject of marriage and divorce. Statute laws may help to restrain viciousness, but they do not give moral tone to society. While the violation of the purity and sanctity of the marriage state of the later Romans is not directly attributable to her laws affecting domestic relations, neither was the purity and permanency of the marriage ties of the early Romans and ancient Germans caused directly by the simplicity of their customs and laws of marriage.

It seems to be a fact, that strictness in morals does not keep pace with strictness in marriage rites and statutes in a nation's progress. On this point Mr. Bishop in his most valvable work on marriage and divorce, observes: "No one can look at this question as it appears in the laws and practices of different people, without discovering the general truth to be, that, in proportion as a nation or a state passes out of the condition of simple innocense and purity into artificial rakishness, lust, and the debasement of real marriage, the laws put up their artificial barriers to matrimony in cumbersome forms which they render essential to legal marriage."

It is said that under the Empire of Rome, when license and licentiousness were rampant and marriage ties were dissolved, almost, at will, and efforts of an effete senate by means of statute law to counteract the evil, were made the subject of ridicule. We must look further than statutes or the lack of them, if we wish to get at the root of the evil, if evil exists. In our domestic relations statute laws are all right, and wise ones materially aid in solving this great social problem, but the best of statutes are impotent if they are not backed by the moral sentiment of the people. The hope of society is not so much in our law-makers as it is in the mothers of our children. Home influence and parental teaching

exert a more powerful restraining influence on human action than all the statutes ever enacted. As a rule our troubles do not lie so much in our laws as in our people. Human impulses and affections are not governed by artificial codes. That marriage and divorce are legitimate subjects of legislation goes without question. With our ideas of civilization we can readily see there should be some regulation by the state on the subject of marriage. Such regulation should be reasonable. And when statutes are enacted they should be but the crystalization of the best social customs, forms and traditions of the people, and for the purpose of securing that uniformity, certainty and stability of the marriage relation demanded by our social interests. It is a hope entertained, and not an unreasonable one, that a uniform law may be enacted in all of the states, on the subject of marriage and divorce. I believe a voluntary commission composed of representative men from a number of states, is working now to that end. Such a movement should receive encouragement. With a reasonable uniform law on the subject, much of the ills and evils, real and imaginary, complained of would vanish and marriage would be placed on a firmer pedestal. In the state of Washington, both marriage and divorce are regulated and controlled by statute. The common law marriage has been entirely superceded by statute. The question was set at rest in the case, "In re McLaughlin estate, 4 Wash." and I am convinced it was settled right. The next question is, does our statute on this subject meet the demands and requirements of society in general, and adequately protect the individuals most directly interested?

What have we? The first step and prerequisite to this sacred union is a license. In order to secure this the parties must be of legal age, the female eighteen and the male twenty-one, if under this age the consent of the parent or guardian must be secured. A ceremony must be performed. This may be either religious or civil. If religious, to be performed by a regularly ordained minister or priest of any religious denomination. If civil, it may be performed by any judicial officer. A public and convenient record is kept of all licenses issued and also of all marriage contracts. The ceremony must be performed in the presence of two witnesses. Numerous penal laws are enacted to secure the faithful performance

and observance of all statutory requirements essential to the consummation of the marital union, and adequate punishments are provided for violations of these requirements. So far as I can see, our statute fully covers the ground, and Washington law-makers have wisely legislated on the subject of marriage. I can not call to mind any requirement that in my judgment should be eliminated, nor anything that should be added. All needful protection seems to be thrown around the contracting parties, and no onerous conditions are imposed. It seems to answer, unless it should be deemed expedient to prevent intermarrying between the white and colored races. Experience has shown that such marriages have rarely, if ever, turned out happily. The amalgamation of the races in this country in a sexual way, is opposed to all ideas of social advancement, and the best sentiment and judgment, I take it, of the different races is united on this proposition. I believe there should be legislation on the subject to the end of preventing such marriages in the state of Washington.

There is a wide divergence of opinion on the subject of the granting of divorces. There appears to be a deep-rooted opinion among some very good people that marriage is of such a sacred character that courts and legislatures should not interfere with it in any way, and strong influences have been brought to bear on legislative bodies by religious orders to have such principles incorporated into statute law. I have no fault to find with such a belief, as it is a healthy sentiment that deplores divorce. As a religious creed voluntarily lived up to by the members of a church, it is but fulfilling our ideal in the marriage relation. As an abstract principle we believe it to be absolutely correct. In Utopia it will be universally practiced. But in this imperfect, sinful world of ours, the law wisely reserves to itself supervision over that portion of human kind that, from perverseness or lack of ideality, runs counter to our best social customs, to the end that the happiness of the people and the purity and harmony of our home life may be secured, and that our children may be protected and reared under correct and wholesome influences. The law recognizes the necessity, in certain cases, of legally separating married people, but it is not its policy to encourage divorce. Marriage is encouraged as beneficial to the state.

Divorce is discouraged, because it is considered a

detriment to the state. The policy of the law is, that marriage should be lasting and death only should separate the parties, except in extreme cases and for grave reasons, As to the policy of not granting divorces for any cause or at all, South Carolina may be taken as a fair example. Mr. Bishop is authority for the statement that with the exception of six years, from 1872 to 1878, no divorces, even for adultery, are or ever have been granted either by the courts or by the legislature. This statement was made in 1891; whether there has been legislation since I cannot say. But as to the workings of this law, I will quote from Judge Nott, speaking from the bench of that state's highest tribunal. He says: "In this state where divorces are not allowed for any cause whatever, we sometimes see men of excellent character unfortunate in their marriage and virtuous women abandoned and driven away houseless by their husbands who would be doomed to celibacy and solitude if they did not form connections which the law does not allow, and who make excellent husbands and virtuous wives still. Yet they are considered as living in adultery, because a rigorous and unyielding law, from motives of policy alone, has ordained it so. And so common is this form of polygamous union, that it has become necessary to regulate by statute how large a portion a married man may give of his property to his concubine. Superfluous legislation which never would have been thought of had not concubinage been common. Between two evils choose the lesser is a maxim applicable both to law and morals. While marriage should never be dissolved except for the weightiest causes causes that defeat the very end for which such unions are formed, yet when such unions are formed, yet when such causes are found to exist, the law unhesitatingly applies the remedy. It also should as unhesitatingly refuse relief if the causes are not adequate, to the end that a wholesome respect of the law and the marriage relation may be instilled into the minds of those contemplating the relation, and so prevent hasty and experimental marriages.

When divorces are granted, I believe they should be absolute. I believe neither the individual nor the state should ever interfere in the relations of married people, except in matters relating to a final and permanent separation. Impertinent interference between married people by meddlers has caused the wrecking of many