The Rutland weekly globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-08-15

We publish i'll another column, com
munication in reference to divorces, drawn
out by some editorial remarks made by us
some days ago. We agree, in every res
pect, with the sentiments of the writer,
and firmly believe that whatever tends to
weaken the bonds of matrimony, tends to
weaken society itself, and the safety there
of. Indiana, for years, was by-word of
reproach, and held up to the scorn and detcs-
tation of the world, because it was alleged
that divorces could he there obtained with
such extraordinary ease and facility. Yer
mont wrapped itself in its garments of as
sumed virtue and joined in the hue and cry
against poor Indiana and other western
states, holding her own statute book in her
hand, and pointing to it, exclaimed, here
the sacredness of the marriage tie is as
sured, here are provisions which will pre-
vent, as they were designed to, all hasty,
improper or fraudulent divorces. What
was the fact all this time Vermont grant
ed divorces for the same, and only the
same reasons that Indiana did. The only
difference between the states was that it
took one year longer to obtain a divorce
here than there. Persons could come to
| Vermont from foreign states, gain resi-
dence here, and then obtain divorce for
causes not recognized in the state from
which they came. So they could in lndi-
ana, but in one years less time, and we,
therefore, assumed the garb of sanctity and
decried Indiana.
This is not all. Our correspondent al
ludes to the collusion often practiced in
order to obtain divorce, referring to one
marked example. Under the old Indiana
law, no party could obtain divorce I'M
less it was proved, by the oath of tho
party seeking divorce, that he was a bono
fde resident of the state, and that there
was no collusion, understanding or agree
ment between husband and wife by whlcl
a divorce was sought How stands the
case in Vermont? Simple residence il
only required to be proved, and it is un
necessary to inquire whether the residence
~ ODWu NNc VI Onll ShlilNh w BlNN wv l'th
a status IN court so that he could petition
for relief. This is not the worst side o
VermOnt's case, either. There is no pro
vision made in our statutes to prevent col
lusive agreements between man and wifi
seeking divorce. A few years ago two pc
titions for divorce were pending in tn
Supreme court of this county, both o
which were granted. The same day tn
husband in the one case married the wifi
in the other, and the other parties did tn
same. Here was apparently and almOs
beyond doubt, actual collusiOn and a
agreement made to obtain divorces in orde
to ''swop wives" Judge Prout, then req
resenting Rutland in one branch Of tn
legislature, took advantage of these occul
ences to introduce bill into the legis
? lature, and endeavored to enforce its pas
sage, providing that divorces should not b
granted, unless the party applying thereto
| should make an affidavit, that II was sougl
! without collusion or agreement with til
other party. This would have been on
S step in the right direction, but the legisli
ture, by large majority, refused to pa
j the bill. What is the natural inference
t Only this, that the legislature were di
I posed to make the dissolution of Il
' marriage contract as easy as possible, evel
;, If 1t was necessary to resort to collusi'
n agreements, Three-q quarters of the dive
8 ces granted in Vermont are founded upC
l. such agreements, and will continue to
}, until the laws are changed and public Sc
), timent reformed,