Morning journal and courier., 1884-01-31
Thursday, January 31. 1884.
DIYORCE IN RHODE ISLAND

Many of tho governors of States in this great, glorious and free country have had something to say in the messages they have delivered this year about the divorce ques- | tion. And what they have said reveals very plainly the importance of that question and l the very imperfect condition of the divorce | laws. The latest gubernatorial utterance
 concerning this matter is that of Governor Bourn, of our little neighbor Rhode Island. Rhode Island has been rapidly getting bad reputation on account of it's divorces The newspapers have repeatedly stated within the past few months that some half dozen
 married people we'll known in New York are
 going through the process of acquiring a residence" in Rhode Island for the purpose
 of getting divorced. These and other state
 ments have attracted attention to the little
 State and injured it's good name. And now
 comes it's governor and shows that it's bad
 reputation is deserved. He points out that
 the proportion of divorces to marriages in
 Rhode Island is constantly increasing. In
 1882 there was one divorce to every g. mar riages. And as probably one-third of the population are adherents of the Roman Cath olic church, in which divorces are not recog- nized for any cause, the proportion of di- vorces is absolutely startling. For ten years ending Dec 31, 1882, there were 2, 824 appi- cations for divorce in the State, of which 2, POI were granted. The large majority of these divorces were granted without opposi- ton, and therefore upon ex parte deposi- hons which are practically only such depo- . S1l rIz prima facie case. Though the law provides that no divorce shall be granted if it shall ap- pear that there is collision between the par ties, yet it is well known fact, says the gov ernor, that in large number of cases there is actual collusion, though it may not be brought to the attention of the court. About one fifth of the applications al- lsge adultery as a cause fer divorce, and yet the governor is informed by the attorney ever known to him based on evidence brought out in divorce case. In fact, continues the governor, ''a divorce for this cause would be granted upon evidence that would not war rant for a moment the holding of 8 person upon 8 criminal charge for the commission of the crime. Our statute practically limits the causes of divorce to the discretion of the court, and is so much more favorable to easy divorcss that instances are not rare of per
 sons coming to the State and remaining the time required to obtain standing in our courts" E
 Governor Bourn does not know how to remedy this condition of things, but he makes the recommendation that applicants for divorce be compelled to produce their witnesses in open court to give their testi- mony in all cases where this course is prac- ticAble. This would tend in some degree to prevent coliusion, but it would probably not have much effect. It is difficult to say what would. The experience of Massachusetts in trying to deal with the divorce question is not very encouraging to the lawmakers of other States. In that State the judges adopted the practice good many years ago of requiring prosecution to be set on foot as a guarantee of good faith ini any divorce proceedings involving the charge of adultery; but the prosecution never came to anything in such cases, chiefly because juries will not send 8 man or woman to jail for such an off, fense, and therefore the requirement. had no effect in checking the spread of divorce The same may be said of another Massachusetts requirement., that the attorney general shall intervene in all cases. So little have these attempts accomplished that Dr. Wells, in his recent interesting report on divorce in that State, declares that the resources of law have been pretty much exhausted there without imposing any effective restraint upon di- vorce.