Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-11-17
being the ruls unauestionably fosters VIC.

much to do with The ease with which di.
vorce is accomplished. It is possible for
the parties to be divorced without the
knowledge of one of them, and it has
been shown that it is even within the posi-
bilities for neither to know anything about
it until the decree is granted, and not then
unless some one takes the trouble to in
form the husband and wife that their rela-
ton is illicit, and that they must remarry.
The absurdity of some of the laws is al
most amusing. For instance, in North
Carolina a wife must prove that her hus.
band has been living in adultery" before
she has q remedy. So the occasional Of
Tense is no offense that constitutes cause.
In Florida the habitual exercise of vio-
lent and ungovernable temper is sufficient
"cause." In North Carolina, as in Penn.
sylvania, desertion is no cause for divorce,
but in many States it is ground for par
tial divorce. In Missouri wife may have
a divorce If her husband becomes va.
grant in most States he must become a
felon before criminal conviction is made
"good cause" In some States the mar.
riage Of divorced persons is forbidden, and
in others it is permitted. Thus it is posi-.
BILE for man to have two lawful wives
living at the same time, and laws of equal
force compel him to recognize each when
he is within the proper Jurisdiction.
Chief Justice Davis, of New York, says
Congress has no power to touch the ques-
ton of uniformity of divorce laws. That
he is right is without dispute, yet there
are sensible people who are demanding an
immediate national marriage and divorce
law. These can be secured only by amend.
ment of the Constitution, enlarging the
powers of Congress. 1t is probable that
the whole people would gladly acquiesce in
the extension of power in this regard, ex-
cept for the fear that every step in that
direction makes the next more easy and
that thus there will grow up a disposition
to surrender vital rights of States with less
and less of reluctance. But to the student
pears to be shallow. If it is the right
thing to do to propose and adopt the
amendment, and the people confess its
necessity, mere fear that States rights
may be broken down should not prevent
the accomplishment of that right thing.
| Judge Davis pronounces in strong terms
for the amendment He declares that to
| give Congress power to make uniform laws
on the subject will be one of the most pro-
nounced reforms of the age.
The Bar Association of New York is
about to take some action to check the
disreputable practices of the notorious
divorce lawyers of that city, whose frauds
all the Courts admit, but which they are
powerless to correct or prevent. This is a
movement in the right direction, but it is
of course no specific for the evil of easy
divorce.
Leonard Woolsey Bacon has a valuable
article on this question in the current num-
Der of the " Princeton Review" which
adds much to the literature of the subject.
He declares that the reform has reached
that stage where its chief danger is from
its friends by which he means to convey
the idea that the reform is liable to take
harm from the advancement of exorbitant
demands and untenable doctrines. Very
few are now so bold as to defend our pres
ent system of conflicting divorce laws, but
the reform receives injury from that large
class that has nothing to say, or at least
only faint expressions of sympathy to ex-
tend. Mr.. Bacon is right in this view.
The corrections needed will not be applied
so long as there is apathy on the question
among any considerable body of citizens.
Dead weights to progress are more disas-
trous than open enemies. What MIR. Bacon
would have done is: First, to enforce more
rigidly even the bad laws as they now
stand ), prevent the scandalous malprac-
tees of the divorce detectives and lawyers;
make all divorce procedure open, public,
speedy make society an interested party
let the State take cognizance of all actions,
as having an interest in the outcome, in its
relation of guardian of society in maintain
ing the sanctity of marriage; provision
must be made that crimes disclosed ss
causes for divorce shall be punished, and
that the Court shall bind over all offenders
developing before it; punish the conspir-
ing together of parties to procure divorces
divorce everywhere, ga mensa ct t0ro,"
and "a ri,,culo matrimonii, and lastly, the
concluding of an agreement among the
States as to the comfy that should exist
between them as to divorce laws, with a
view to the uniformity being secured, that
is on all sides admitted to be so desirable.
To resort to a national law this essayist
deems most dangerous, as to arrive at that
point we shall break down the most vital
system of national government by confed.
Grafton of sovereign States. "0noe let
the law of the family be taken away from
the jurisdiction of the States, and absorbed
by Congress, and how much of the SOW
ereignty of the States will remain p he
asks how much is likely to remain after
precedent"
We confess that we do not share these
fears, nor believe that the stability of the
Union will be shaken, or the principles of
free government government by the PEG.
pie, of the people-be invaded by the pro-
posed federal extension. If the remedy
for gigantic evil is to be found only in
the direction of constitutional amendment,