New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-10-07


marriages in this State has increased since the YAM
Yuorhs decisionT
81 have not informed myself upon the statistics
of that business 1t has been a harder world TO live
in, in some respects within the last two years, and
should not be surprised if people felt the bur
den OF life more than they used to- and l suppose
that has some influence on the ratio of divorces
DO you think it possible for the State to pass
law the effect of which would be to render marriages
contracted outside the State, by citizens prohibited
from marrying, invalid IN this Slater
Il cannot see any reason why the Legislature Of
this State cannot prohibit its courts from recogniz
ing such marriages. and at present constitutional
objection occurs to me- The courts have been IN the
| habit of insertmgIn their DEGREES provision pro
| hibiting the divorced party from being married
again, although | do not know by what authority
| that Is incorporated in the decree any more than
there is authority for defining in every decree the
legal consequences feet of that decree. 1t would
seen as if 1t was intended by the lawmakers that
that should prevent person divorced for the spec
| flied cause from marrying again anywhere. And
yet after much conflict of opinion, it seems to have
become settled that the provision does not apply to
| second marriage ont of this State. The
! marriage relation results from contract How far
any State will enforce recognize the obliga-
tion of a contract made out Of this State affecting
the domestic relations of its citizens IS political
question, 1t to me- for the authorities of this
| State 10 determine. As TO any amendment of the
| laws bearing upon the relation of husband and
wife, think the laws regulating the making of the
| marriage contract require more revision that the
laws regulating the dissolution of that contract. II
| the relation of husband and wife can be said to
exist az all after the legislation of late years, and
after an English court, under statutory system
| Iort 10 hos al IN wit
an injunction against her husbands visiting her at
her house, on the ground that as owner she has
rights to which the duty Of a wife is subordinate,
why then the creation of that relation ought to be
as welt authenticated and certified the admission
of student into q law Office TO study law, the
binding OF child to apprenticeship, the maxi
ing of contract for the purchase of goods of the
value of more than $50
"Do YOU think the evidence in divorce cases
should be more carefully examined than ut PRESENT.
That depends upon the care with which it is
now examined do not believe that the judges are
wanting in care in such eases. On the contrary, |
think the most scrupulous is shown for in that
respect the reports of current decisions contain the
most convincing evidence that no divorce cases are
permitted to pass judge without the scrupulous
scrutiny of evidence
DO you think It advisable to take the testimony
in open court instead OF before referee ~
81 do not see any good to be gained by that
People falsely in open court often as they
do in shut court The only beneficial effect of try.
ing n divorce case in open court would be that 1t
would attract publicity, and fcolluslon between the
parties or fraud upon the public occurred it might
sooner come to light. But that would not DO true
OF all cases and that beneficial effect would be
than counterbaanced by the injury resulting from
the public disclosure OF aad application upon acts
OF lewduess and mddclIty, while the courts would
become like Of the street corners in New York,
places that by their lewl exhibitions stimulate
without gratifying desire"
q" Nav understand. then, that You consider no
chang. in the divorce laws as absolutely neccs
III you ask whether it is urgently necessary in
tie interest Of the community, am not prepared to
say, though NV impression Is that lt would be rs
rpnrb fpr the publc benefit 10 reDudiate marriage
by divorced person contracted ont Of the state as
it Is for tag pubic Interest 20 prohibit such mar
rage within the State. IL public policy requires
that person divorced for Ctrain causes should not
De- married again. the reason OF tho policy does not
cease because the second marriage takes place out
OF the State. and II that Is t. be the policy Of the
state tbc heretofore expressed intention OF the
Legislature IN that respect Is not contaminated un-
less there - some amendment 70 the law
What 30 you iecl disposed TO say on the question
beyond us legal aspertF
Il will saw az "A citizen that the provision of law
prohibiting the Temarnagc OF divorced person
might for consistency sake 10 be mdue 10 apuN 10
marriages ont Of the state as well as to marriages
within n. Whether that enactment should have
been made In the stature originally ~ question l
have not considered. IL does not better the remedy
of the aggreyed party ana tho tendency OF lcgsla-
ton Is 10 have a few persons ~ possible laOOring
under disabilities. II has becu considered That the
state OF a hopeless debtor Is very iorOrn one ana
the law provides for relieving HIM. hopeless man
In any respect a man who can never hope to calOy
domestic life nor mercantile credit, IS not only an
object OF pay cut he soon becomes an incumbIauce,
1T only 10 die, aud often wishing for no different
destiny. man beyond tue reach OF par
don scarcely exists; and pu1iic policy
requires that no man shall be beyond
the reach of pardon. hu uniaithful husband may
hr said to Ue worthy OF diStrust; it might be said
that the law ought to interfere to prevent women
from putting cOuHdeGcc IN han again. But hal not
women IN tHat respect as well be lett to the proec-
ton fIruishcd by their own dccacyT Does not the
law undertake TOO much when u assumes 10 project
an individual against the ordinary ylclssltudes OF
MET Viewed In the light OF 'nalty AMI not as Il
security 10 women, the statutory provision seems
fearful pcnaly objectionable and uremcdiaDc by
any act OF grace. but II the act OF divorced man
m marrying again ia crime, It ought to Dc crime
wherever committed IL ought not to re crime III
Rockland County, ~ Y, aud no crime III liacEeh-
sack n. j.; It ought not TO be a crime IN HUDSON
County IN this State, aud no crime III berkshire