Arizona citizen., 1878-05-17
BAD BILL AS IT STANDS.
An Outrage on Arizona.

Arizona. It first provides that tn,
 District Courts in New Mexico, Utah
 Wyoming, Washington, Dakota, Idaho
 and Montana, "shall have exclusiv,
 "original jurisdiction in all matters
 proceedings and processes relating
 to divorce,n and then conspicuously
 and in a seperate paragraph of tho
 same section provides:
 In the Territory of Arizona, the sn i preme courts alone shall have iurisdic
 tion in all matters of divorce; and all
 cases and matters of divorce pending
 and undetermined in any other court
 of said Territory at the time of the
 passage of this act, shall be transferred
 to and triable and determinable in said
 supreme court.
 This is palpable injustice to Arizona
 and there seems to be some design in
 the matter. Just what or why, we arc
 unable to now understand. To compel
 all divorce litigants to go to Prescott
 and be at much greater expense of
 lawyers, time, etc, than in the District
 Courts, would be almost a mOnstrous
 wrong, especially as the people of no
 other Territory are subjected to it, and
 therefore it is manifeslly special in justice. Delegate Stevens will undoubt- edly see to it that the bill is properly amended in the House. Aside from
 this feature of the bill, it seems to be fair and just. So far as we are per sonally concerned, it would be all the same if the bill provided that the Su- preme Court of the United States should have exclusive original juris- diction in such proceedings, but there are worthy men and worthy women, and will continue to be to whom the difference is vast.
 The causes for divorce are by the bill made the same in all the Territo- ries, and as the bill is likely to become a law with section two as it passed the Senate, it is given as follows:
 SEC. 2 And no divorce shall be granted in any of said Territories ex- cept for the following causes, duly proved by witnesses in open court or by dispositions duly taken for that pur- pose, namely, first, for the cause of adultery of the party defendant, and not for this cause if it shall be made to appear to the court that complainant has been guilty of the like offense i; second, for impotence; third, for ex- treme cruelty; fourth, for willful and unjustifiable assertions for the period of at least two years; and, fifth, for habitual drunkenness. And no decreet of divorce shall be rendered upon the mere default or failure of any defend ant to answer or plead to the allega tions of the complaints bill or declara- ton. Nor shall the admission of al defendant in any form authorize a de cree of divorce. Nor shall such de cree in any wise be rendered unless the court shall be satisfied, upon due proof, that there is no collision be- tween the complainant or plaintiff and the defendant or respondent. Nor shall any divorce be granted nor suit forI divorce entertained ill behalf of any or plaintiff who has not, for at least one year before the institu ton of the suit, been an actual and bona fide resident of the Territory nor, if the defendant is not a resident of such Territory, until copy of theI bill, petition, or declaration shall have been served upon the defendant orI if his or her residencel shall be known, at least three months before any such case shall be heard, any such service duly proved. If the residence of the defendant or respon- dent be unknown, then. upon satifac- tory proof, by affidavit, of that fact, and showing also the last place off residence of such defendant or respond ent known to the complainant Or plain tiff, the court shall make an order for of notice of the pendepcy and object of the suit, in some news paper in said Territory, banning it, and also in the newspaper nearest the place of the last known residence of suchI defendant or respondent, at least once in each week, for twelve successive weeks prior to the time when such defendant or respondent shall be re- quired 10 appear and defend And in such case, after such publication has been duly made and proved, the court may proceed with the case as upon a personal service, except that, If such defendant or respondent shall appear, in person or by counsel, and ask to defend, at any time prior to the final judgment or decree, he or she shall be entitled to make a full defense in the cause. No person shall be al lowed to appear or act as attorney for either party in suit for divorce with
 4 orney duly executed by such party, with due proof of such execution.
 The extraordinary acts of the late of Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico and even of Arizona, have in. luced Congress to revise much of its egislation regarding the Territories, md attorneys as we'll as litigants must
 ha .I