New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-10-07
ONE CAUSE OF THE INCREASE.

The apparent causes for this increase are several
Doubtless one of the most marked is the compare
lively recent decisions of the Court OF Appears Vi
tins State which practically remove all restraint
upon the subsequent marriage OF persons against
whom DEGREES OF divorce have been granted for
their acts of in6delity The case OF Van Voorns
va. Brintnall was argued in the Court OF Appears
in March 1881 aud was decided in OCTOBER Oh nat
wear The General Term in the Second Dlstrlct hau
held in that case las had the General Term IN tnls
citv in the case of Marshall Marshall, and
tbe General Term of the Superior Court in Thorp
vs. Thorp. and IS had most OF the judges OF the
State before whom the question had come at Irlal
Tarm, that a person against whom decree Of abso-
Int divorce hau been granted could not anywhere
contract a marriage that would be recognized as
valid in this State during the Lifetime
of the person who obtained The decree INT
ouestiun came before the Court Oh APP
meals for the first time in the van Noor-
hrs case The appellate court reversed the hoihlngs
of the courts below and held that a marriage VaDd
in the place where contracted must be eohslderod
valid here Notwithstanding any provision ID INC
statutes of this State declaring that no such Ill
yorced person could marry during the husbands OF
wife's lifetime. Thls proposition was reanlfineu
and strengthened by the decision OF the same court
last wear in the case Of Thorp VS.. ThOrp. The
diyorced for his own misconduct to-day can TO-
norroy step over into New-Jersey or Connecticut
yhere there is no such RESTRICTION and there marry
4be woman whom he takes with him for the pur-
nose. when he returns to this State its courts are
bound to hold that this marriage, which the State
law and the decree of the courthad forbidden MIN 10
make is yahd aDd that the offspring OF 1t are Iegt-
mate The Court of Appeals sustains this apparent
inconsistency on the broad principle that no law
can be so extended in its effect as to have an
extra.territorial" force unless its provisions IN
Terms distinctly prescribe that 1t is to have such
effect. But the court lntimates that law might be
framed, analogous to the one 70 prevent duellnP'
that would follow the guilty divorced party out OF
the State and on his return to this State with his
new wife.
The obvious effect of these decisions has followed
BEFORE 1881 the severity of the divorce laws had
been so firmly maintained in this State that there
were few cour tries in Europe and scarcely any
States in America where the marriage tie could not
he more easily broken. But for unprinciped mar
red persons who wish to be free from their present
domestic alliances all restraint except that of public
sentiment is now practically removed. man OF
woman of this description can commit hagrant
act of indelty that will be brought to the knowl-
edge of the husband OF wife, as the case may be,
who will thus be forced into seeking the redress
which the offending party is anxious should be OBJ
tanned When the facts are laid before the court
the Judge is bound to grant the divorce-there is no
COLLISION apparent and the guilt is plain. AS soon
as the decree is signed the guilty individual can
rice in an hour less into another State with an
other, and marry, and the new consort will occupy
the same position in the eyes of the law did the
innocent one who has thus been wronged. Then
when the new tie becomes irksome the same opera
h. al nd go m 0d iU6uifUm.
SECRET TRIALS AND DETECTIVES EVIDENCE.
Another source of divorce multiplication, and one
that existed quite as actively before the Van Voor
his decision is the secrecy with which DEGREES are
obtained This springs from the idea in the minds
of many judges that the dVuiging of the prurent
details of domestic trouble and marital in6delity
before those who crowd into cOurt-rooms to listen
to such tales would have demoraizing effect This
idea too is strengthened by the wish of lawyers to
keep the facts regard TO their clients cases away
nom public knowledge. Therefore the most OF such
causes tried in the secluded offices of lawyers
appointed as referees, and neither the pub nor
newspaper reporters know Of the time or place OF
such hearings Moreover the judges make the most
stringent rules, which are binding upon the clerks,
fOrblddlng them to allow the evidence in divorce
cases nied with them 70 be made public. The m
scrupulous lawyers, therefore. who advertise that
they will obtain divorces without publicity" are
generally able to make good their promises In
that respect The same men have other methods to
aid them IN their discreditable work Chief and
one Of the worst, among these is the detective
system. No home ls safe from its invasion. Give
to q certain class OF detectives who carry on their
business in this CITY, statement of the facts which
1t 10 desired shall be proven before referee as to
almost any individual in the community, and give
them, also the big fees which they will demand |
and the testimony will be forthcoming.
Little, If any. OF the blame be laid upon the |
shoulders of the referee. In the most dangerous /
glasses of cases-either those where the divorce is
sought without the knowledge Of, or service being
fnade upon. the defendant or where there is cols |
luslon-there Is no one TO cross-examine witnesses
TO make any investigation Of the truth Of state
ments made by them. The detectives may there
fore, tell almost any story with IMMUNITY. The
geferee do little more than record the evidence
md pass upon the question whether 1t furnishes