[780] The uniform divorce law for the Swiss cantons, which went into effect in 1876, has not tended to produce a uniform rate. In 1885, for instance, Appenzell, Outer Rhodes, "has forty-nine times as much divorce as Unterwalden o. d. W., while with all the divergences of law in this country the differences of rate are much less."--WILLCOX, _The Divorce Problem_, 59, giving a table of the decrees granted in the twenty-six cantons, 1876-85; compiled from _Die Bewegung der Bevölkerung in der Schweiz im Jahre 1885_ (Beilage I).
[781] DIKE, "Uniform Marriage and Divorce Laws," _Arena_, II, 399-408, gives a valuable discussion of the two methods of procedure. See also BENNETT, "National Divorce Legislation," _Forum_, II, 429-38; STEWART, "Our Mar. and Div. Laws," _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, XXIII, 232, 233; and JAMESON, "Divorce," _North Am. Rev._, CXXXVI, 325, all favoring a constitutional amendment; also NORTH, "Uniform Mar. and Div. Laws," _ibid._, CXLIV, 429-31; LLOYD, _Law of Divorce_, 269 ff.; JOHNSON, _Remarks upon Uniformity of State Legislation_; SNYDER, _Problem of Uniform Legislation_, 3 ff., favoring state action. In his _Geography of Marriage_, 182 ff., SNYDER favors concert of action among the states and a prohibitory amendment restricting or defining the maximum number of causes for divorce which a state might sanction. See also the articles by STANWOOD AND STANTON mentioned in the Bibliographical Index, IV; and consult the _Reports of the Conferences of the State Boards of Commissioners for Promoting Uniformity of Legislation in the U. S._
[782] See _Reports of the Nat. League for the Protection of the Family_ (1900), 7; (1901), 8.
In the meantime it is essential to fix the attention upon causes rather than effects. For the wise reformer, who would elevate and protect the family, the center of the problem is marriage and not divorce.
It is needful in the outset, as already suggested, frankly to accept marriage and the family as social institutions whose problems must be studied in connection with the actual conditions of modern social life. It is vain to appeal to ideals born of old and very different conditions. The guiding light will come, not from authority, but from a rational understanding of the existing facts. Small progress can be expected while leaning upon tradition. The appeal to theological criteria is, no doubt, matter of conscience on the part of many earnest men. Nevertheless the vast literature which seeks to solve social questions through the juggling with ancient texts seems in reality to be largely a monument of wasted energy. Much of it is sterile, or but serves to retard progress or to befog the issue. Witness the perennial discussion of the "scriptural" grounds of divorce, or of the Levitical sanction or condemnation of marriage with a deceased wife's sister! Witness the vapid homilies and treatises on the wedded life! There is, in truth, urgent need that the moral leaders of men should preach actual instead of conventional social righteousness. It is high time that the family and its related institutions should be as freely and openly and unsparingly subjected to scientific examination as are the facts of modern political or industrial life.