New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-07-28

peared there i'm suit for divorce. The law
of the Territory allows q divorce for either OF
six causes named, one of which is extreme
"cruelty;n and this cruelty Is defined to
be the infliction of grievOus bodily injury
or grievous mental suffering upon the other'
by one party to the marriage. Ninety days
residence is exacted from plaintiff. Under
these laws Mr.. Vosburgh brought suit, setting
forth the course taken by his wife In circu-
lating against him the charge of poisoning, as
the "extreme cruelty which had caused nm
"grievous mental suffering" There was no
trick of concealment to obtain divorce by
default. The wife appeared and answered.
and was represented by counsel on the trlai'
Upon that trial the husband narrated the
course pursued by his wife in preferrlng the
charge of poisoning, and its effect upon DIS
feelings. HIS counsel read one or two cor
roborative affidavits. The wife's counsel
stated that they had deliberately decided not
to submit evidences and the Court adiudged
that, irrespective of the wife's procuring an
indictment against her husband, her circu-
lating the charge, and giving the District-At-
torney aid in the prosecution, was " cruel
" treatment; and, if it were not. that her re-
iterating the charge of poisoning in her
answer and withholding all evidence to sus-
tain ii, constituted treatment most cruel and
"inhuman" For these reasons divorce was
granted the plaintiff being ordered to pay
$25 alimony every half year, for five years.
As the wife appeared and was heard, this
story has no bearing upon one grave abuse
under the divorce laws, the obtaining decree
upon default, by devices which conceal the
proceeding from the defendant. Upon the
other branch of the subject, the prosecution
of suits by collision between husband ana
wife, it may have an important and most I'M
fortunate influence. The trainers of the Ma
tional Constitution included a provision re-
ouirine the courts of each State to give "full
.'faith and credit to the judgments OF
courts of other States. From this pro-
vision, which has worked well enough
as respects ordinary money judgments,
a concealed mischief has been developed in
its application to judgments of divorce. For
the States differ strenuously and by wide lines
in respect to grounds of divorce. South Car
DINA refuses all divorce. New-YOlk allows
full divorce solely for the extreme violation
of the marriage tie, and only to the inno-
cent party Other States have laxer rules.
Dakota allows it for cruelty, of which wife's
slandering her husband may be an example.
Ard Utah caps the climax by according 1t
whenever it is made to appear that the par
"ties cannot live in peace and union" Now
if South Carolina or New-YOrk were left
to herself she would enforce her chosen
policy within her own territory by SIM
ply disregal ding DEGREES made in Dakota
or Utah. But the Federal Constitu-
ton is considered to preclude this. The
courts have seen their way to say, az
respects decree obtained without giving
the defendant notice and q hearing, that
it is not such II judgment az the Constitution
means, and need not have full faith and
credit in other States. But Judgment rem
dered on a hearing anywhere is enforced
everywhere. Hence have arisen wOful con-
fusion and uncertainty, and the lax States
have been enabled in great measure to folst
their peculiar laws upon the strict ones. Thus
if the Dakota law and such judgments as
this of Vosburgh can be sustained, hus-
band and wife willing to agree upon
divorce can obtain one by few easy steps,
She ISLANDERS him. He spends three months
fSummer yacation) IN Dakota. He makes
oath that the Islander has caused him grievOus
mental suffering. And she instructs her at
torney to inform the court that she has no
evidence to prove the SANDER true. And the
favorable decree of the court in such a sham
trial rs this may be brought back by the
plaintiff TO a State seeking by steady laws
and policy to maintain marriage, and there
flourished in her courts as a decree to which
they must give /" full faith and credit"
Truly the land needs reform in the law
of divorce. If it canuOt be attained by a
UNIFORM National law, let it be sought by
some concurrence of legislation and some
reasonable comfy of courts in administration
of their local laws