Morning journal and courier., 1881-07-25
Monday Morning, July 25, 1881.
DIVORCE IN THIS COUNTRY.

Mir. Waldorf H. Phillips in the current number of the International Reuieao dis cusses the divorce question in an interesting and somewhat original way. He believes in divorce and cites the words of Judge Swift as follows: "It is the best policy to admit a dissolution of the contract when it is evident that the parties cannot derive from it the benefits. for which it was instituted, and when instead of being source of the highest pleas ure and most enduring felicity, it becomes the source of the deepest woe and misery ', Mir. Phillips has little patience with those who look upon divorce as an unmiled evil and find in the statistics of increasing divorces proof that the world is growing worse. He calls them the victims of physical or mental dyspepsia and attacks their figures, as "often misleading and consequently unwarranted and falss.' He cites the figures for Maine quoted by ex-Governor Dingley and insists that they are misleading when they seem to show one divorce for every 639 inhabitants, since no allowance is made for the fact that very many of these divorces are secured by persons who are only temporary residents, for the purpose of taking advantage of the liberal laws of the State. The same error, he says, exists in the statistics furnished by the Rev. Mir. Dike as to the number of divorces in Connecticut. That crime is increasing in New England, in 8 greater ratio than elsewhere, because of loose divorce laws, the writer does not admit, and he forcibly replies to criticisms based upon the aforementioned statistics. South Caro- lima has no divorce law.and boasts of it. Yet there adultery is not indictable, and statute law provides how much of mans property he may give to his concubine. A South Car olina judge in case before him declared from the bench 'In this country, where diyorces are not allowed for any causes what characters unfortunate in their marriages, and virtuous women abandoned or driven away houseless by their husbands, who would be doomed to ceibacy or solitude if they did not form connections which the law does not allow, and who make excellent husbands and virtuous wives still Yet they are considered as living in adultery because rigorous and unyielding law, from motives of policy alone has ordained it so.' Another held that "all marriages, almost are entered into on one of two considerations, or interest, and the court is induced to believe the latter is the foundation of most of them"
 But though Mr. Phillips believes in divorce he agrees with all intelligent people that the contradictory and mixed system existing in this country is disgracsful As remedy he would have congressional law declaring in effect that every judgment of divorce ren- dered by State court of competent juris- diction, and valid under the laws of the State, shall be of full force and effect and unquestionable, except for actual fraud prac- ticed upon the court which granted it, in ev- cry other State-providing that the court granting it had actual jurisdiction over both parties, or provided that the marriage which it dissolyes was contracted or consummated in the State the courts of which rendered the judgment; and so far as the status of any child or children may be affected, no judgment of divorce, valid under the laws of the State where it was rendered, shall in any wise be questioned or disregarded He would also have 8 constitutional amendment, practically to the same effect, but asserting it afirmatively by prohibiting the granting of divorce when both parties are not within the GctatGI jurisdiction of the court, except by the courts of the State where the marriage was contracted or consummated