, 1869-12-10

LAT be lAA Nmply HhHu1Aed, ~1tuouL III
uiry, that the divorce obtained by Mrs.
lcFn11and against her husband was legal,
I'D that, though it was not got on the :
round of adultery, still that ground had
1isted. The impression Of Mr., Beecher
eems to have been, and, probably, the
rst impression Of most persons would be,
tat he was not bound 10 inquire into the
.alidity Of the divorce. But the question
By Hecorder Hackett's charge is
,ot ns 10 The honesty Of Mi. Beeehez's in
entions. but whether a primo .ft1cie case
+ technical erirninalitf may not be alleged
gainst him, whereupon they, as hostile
1udgts ind jurors, may give him trouble.
no clergyman or other party has
ever been indicted OF tried for the offence
If aiding and ahetting q bigamous marriage.
the crime Of bigamy il, by
the statutes Of New York, felony,
md, by the same statutes, every |
fclvny, except manblaughter, may hare &C.
cessories as we'll rs principals This being
50, the legal innocence Of Alcssvs- Beecher,
Greeley, bnd rockingham, depends on the
question whether Sl1x. AlcFarland, nj the
time Of her marriage with Richardson, hnd
obtained divorce from Mcfarland, which
the courts Of New York will recognize as
valid.
The Constitution Of the Uniied States pro-
vides that 'sfull faith ind credit shal lie
riven in esch State to the public acts, rec
..1ds, and Judicial proceedings OF every
,ther State" and under this clausa the
Courts bold that 'sn Judgment Of State
Conrt las the su1ue credit, validity aud et-
tect, in every other court within the United
States Which il had III the State where it
~as rendered. ..
Probably no Court Of any other State
won!i squarely deny, and most Of them have
clearly affirmed, that my divorc. which
| sas really valid by the laws Of Indiann
vas valid in such other State. But the
| Courts in all the Statcs havs exercised
perfect freedom in constituting the laws
Of other States, and in cIamining the
Judgment record, and in inquiriug into the
| ruth Of the alleged tacts which are claim
ed to hare given Jurisdiction, with the vie"
of determining for themselves whether th'
iudcnent Of Court Of such other State il
valid, according to the laws under which
Us rendered. IN tne exercise " .41o ..s1'
; the Courts, not only Of Now York, bat
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Iar
sey, Alabama, Maryland and, indeed, Of al
ihe states In *n'en Tue question naa - ..eu
have held that divorce grnnted in anothe
State, against one Of their own residents
1non WOOL no PROCESS - IT. ,eu. ana :. . :.
CUES w. hppss1A1 4A'ltA e'a'e's '"e '1' :, - -
fof aA purposes "aa.sses, *uooS soAo
sesela. Oh .nese stsseo' 1aeiuns *.1
Aork1 MASSACHUSETTS NEW 1'aul''u.fe' ~
Alana5nn' concur ~ no.a'pe Luz. 60. - ~ ~
bano OF we 1es1one ~ noeu r.
into anotaes D1a'o' 'ea's "e 49, -
5 pay W W. xne ms nurnose Of acauirir
, . rsa;scnce or do1nicile in such o:ht
= State, az step towards obtaining divoz,
:, under its Laws, for grounds which would n
- Justify divorce In the State Of their actu
"a residence, such pretended change Of deu
In Gle is not in good faith, or aAimo m,nen'
"A fur the purpose Of remaining, and cons
n. luen,ls gives such other State no jur'sd
hs tion Of the person Of The plaintiff, and
of power to acquire jurisdiction by publicati
ia ''r other process over the pe.son of tue 1
fendant; hence that any divorce obtain
.rk in such other State,-thoush theaplain
fal testify aud the Court decree Tint be va.
"a. resident in good fuith Of such other ST
-. Mt the time,-is void. They hold it 10
H. ~. 49, -,