New-York tribune., 1883-11-04
THE QUESTION OF DOVER.
CONFUSION Caused BY THE PRESENT DIVORCE
LAws-vIEws OF RICHARD BUSTED, JR.

| LAws-vIEws OF RICHARD BUSTED, JR.
To the Editor OF The Tribune:
| SIR: The articles and interviews recently
published by THE TRIBUNE upon the laws OF the different
States in relation marriage and divorce bring before
the public matter OF farreaching consequences already
| too long unheeded. 1t f., however, and partially
| through TUE TRIBUEE's instTumentality, becoming
topic OF interest the public at large has long been
to had charge of the respondents ease nhe chill
dren by the first marrage in the suit OF Van Yoorhes
vs. Brintnal from its incepOn; and argued in each
instance at the Special and General Terms and IN the
Court of Appeals. Judge Russell in his interview OF
yesterday suggests the only practicable way 1t appears
TO me- out Of the difficulties in which the restricted and
opinion OF the Court of Appeals in the Van Voor
es-Brnnall has left II is matter of interest
though not generally known that the Senate Of this State
has taken action in furtherance of about such plan as
that presented by Judge Russell At the risk OF en-
croachng too much upon your space and regreng that
the matter cannot be condensed will briefly as pos
sible state what has been done in this direction After
decision Of the Court of Appeals had been handed
down in the Van VOORHEES, Brintna case, introduced
the 9th Of January 1892 I'm the Bar Association OF
Queens County, resolution calling attention Ito this
subject which provided among other things, for COM
mittce confer with representatives in the state
Legislature in relation 10 obtaining legislative action
upon this topic AS chairman OF the committee appoint
ed by the association succeeded I'm having the following
resolution (Which the that passed by the Bar
AsSOcatiOD) introduced In the Senate III the latter part
| OF the session OF 1882:
aWbereas the laws of the different States Of the Union
on the subject marriage and divorce at great var
ance with and in many instances are contradictory OF
"W6ercas the Court Of Appeals Of the state of New
York recently decided that defendant I'm an action
for divorce on the ground OF adultery against whom
! Judgment has been obtained and who rests under the
prohibition against rc-marTyng may, in defiance Of such
Judgment disregard and with intent TO evade the statI
tory penalty the borders OF this state into aoler
State there marry and at once return to this state ana
that such marriage must be deemed valid within this
state. and have attached to IL all the privileges OF mar
rage contracted by persons who are under No statutory
| prohibition and,
"Hhreas under the existing laws, great confusion is
apt TO and often does arise involving large interests IN
lands the succession 10 property Is endangered the ar
fame and of families jeopardzed and the morals
TheTs1s the laws Of the different States relating
marriage and divorce are not subject to Federal egsa
"HiGras uniform marriage and divorce law through
! out all the States Is highly desirable, therefore,
ResoIred That a committee be appointed to urge our
representative in the state Legislature etc to apprO
pratey request the Governor O this state to seek the
co operation OF the Governors of the several States OF the
Union to bring about at early date as practicable
Governors elected by the Legislatures OF the reSpec
tive States TO devise and prepare an equabe Gohsstent
so that upon the report Of such convention 10 the Gov
ernOr of each State he may recommend the Legislature
OF his State enact the law which such convention
! shall have prepared"
This resolution passed unanimously by the Senate
and referred 10 the Judiciary Committee of that body for
further action. Although requested TO appear before the
committee was prevented by I'll health and the session
ended before could go TO Albany There the matter
has ever since remained Unfortunately the Court OF
Aupcals shrau deciding anything more than u was
compelled TO- and notwithstanding my waiver refused
unou the technical ground that the other side had failed
to bring sufficient parties 10 pass upon the enect such
a decision as subsequently gave, would nave upon
dover While the question OF legitimacy catches the eye
of aymen yet that OF DOVER under the decisions OF the
Court or Appeals they now stand is sch tha 70 push
II as far as Il will go could cause only inexcabe legal
confusion,
The Importance Of the discussion now pending In your
columns Il hope sufficient apology for the length at
winch have written. Respectfully yours.
J0ndicd. n. T., october 20. hcHAED BUsTEED JR