The experience of South Carolina is peculiar. After abstaining from any legislation on the subject for two hundred years, that state indulged in a conservative divorce statute in 1872. Hitherto the courts were competent only to grant separation from bed and board under the common law. By the act in question they were empowered to pronounce decrees of absolute divorce in favor of either spouse (1) for adultery and (2) for abandonment[262] during the space of two years.[263] But this law was of short duration, being repealed in 1878.[264] South Carolina legal sentiment on the divorce problem is fairly revealed in connection with two important decisions during the century. Commenting on the case of Vaigneur _et al._ _v._ Kirk, decided in 1808, Editor Desaussure contrasts the laxity of the marriage laws with the stringency of the rule relating to divorce. "The subject of marriage, and consequently the legitimacy of children, is on the same loose footing in this state that it was in England before" 1753[265] and as "it now is in Scotland. We have no statute regulating marriages, or providing any form for the celebration of them, or for recording them. And they are usually celebrated in any form the parties please, before a clergyman or magistrate." This "remarkable facility of contracting matrimony ... is strongly contrasted with the impracticability of dissolving the contract. No divorce has ever taken place within the state. The legislature has uniformly refused to grant divorces, on the ground that it was improper for the legislative body to exercise judicial powers. And it has as steadily refused to enact any law to authorize the courts of justice to grant divorces _a vinculo matrimonii_, on the broad principle that it was a wise policy to shut the door to domestic discord, and to gross immorality in the community."[266] [262] "Provided, that, when the suit is instituted by the party deserting, it appears that the desertion was caused by the extreme cruelty of the other party, or that the desertion of the wife was caused by the gross or wanton and cruel neglect of the husband to provide suitable maintenance for her, he being of sufficient ability to do so" (p. 30). [263] Act of Jan. 31: _Acts and Joint Res._ (1872), 30 ff. [264] Repealed by act of Dec. 20: _Acts and Joint Res._ (1878), 719. [265] Previous to 26 Geo. II., chap. 33. [266] H. W. DESAUSSURE, in 2 _S. C. Equity Reports_, 644 (revised edition).