New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-08-05

\. rpr,rrsr ON THE LAW OF DIVORCE. t2mo
York: Houghton, Mlim Is Co.
n, Ilovd has river In this little volume the causes
or which divorces will be granted in all the States ana
Territories the time of residence required in each ana
brief digest of the leading decisions by tine appellate
courts together with careful compilation OF he
latest divorce statistics The author sees clear OF
.pv nhiloSophical discussion of deep social questions
involved in his subject, generally contentng hmseh
sith the statement Of the statutory law and OF the
nrnositions decided by the courts in constituting inc
,stutes He appears to sympathize with tho vigorous
language of MIR. Bishop I'm denouncing the system OF
Limited divorce that prevails In this ana many
o,her States as an ilbegotten monster OF divorce
msdc up OF pous doctrine ana woroy s'uP"i'S
this nuisance in the law"
Az Tor an amendment to the United States Constitl-
on permitting Federal legislation that SHAH proVoe
uniform system of divorce throughout the country
Mr. Ioyd will hsve none of II; and on this point nc
s more emphatic than on any other. His DOCK VIII
IN little toward settling this muchdtspued question
IFS statistics will doubtless be used by those who agres
and those who disagree with him. but the furnishing
=, the facts is the full of his contribution
toward the solution OF the problem. Probably inc
real obstacle that for many years VIII ehecVudiS
h,ock such reform will be the varying sentiments
NJ the inhabitants Of the various states IN Non-
nccticut Washington Territory, Kentucky ana utah'
for example, the question 10 what should constitute
left I'm the discretion Of the judge who hears inc
evidence On the other hand, IN South Carolina no
divorces are granted on any ground. Ih'erho"i".o
between these extremes are the other eta'eS WIN
divorce laws as diversified as their BOUNDARIES. IL
Federal legislation were attempted each one of these
States would in all probability, desire that inc
National divorce law should be substantial copy ol
IFS OWL To reconcile such essential ana muir
form differences would be more ulnon'
than tho adjustment Of any bankruptcy legs
laton ever attempted by Congress.
Eut however impossible National divorce legisla-
ton may be- one lesson stands out boldly from MI
Llovd's pages the necessity for reformation IN ue
divorce laws of the States themselves Can single
s,ste pretend 10 be pure from reproach in this regard
hssuredly New-York with all its pretence OF Purtac
severity cannot. Since October 1851 when the Court
of Appeals decided the case of Van WORMS against
Erntpa the good name of the State has rested under
a stigma that the Legislature has made no effort to
remove The law DEGREES that a defendant against
whom decree Of divorce is granted in this state shall
not marry during the lie Of his innocent divorced
wife and the decree OF the court forbds him 70 90 So
But As the above case holds If this same defendant
c,es over the HobOken Ferry the next day, Tor the
purpose of evadlng statute, and is married III
New.Jersev where different law prevails, the New
York courts are bound upon his return. to recognize
that forbidden marriage as good and valid
The Court of Appeals do not hesitate
to express their regret that they are obliged 10 render
such decision; but the statute stands, tley are
able 10 give it no eXtra-territorial effect But they
plainly intimate the mode by which the Legislature
may remove this reprOach from the State. They point
10 the statute against duellng. 1t forbds the citizen
70 leave the State with intent 10 fight duel, and
he carries out such intent he is punished as criminal
upon his return. although the crime was comnued
outside the limits of the State The statute has an
extra teri toria effect simply because the Legislature
declares that il shall have. In the same way might
the marriage Of a divorced man. which, if performed
in this city. would be bigamy, be made 10 constitute
the same crime, though he crossed the Hudson
River 10 commit t. IL is easy to conceive the great
number Of collusive divorces 10 which the present
anomalous condition OF the New-York law gives rise.
Another legislative session ought not TO be allowed
to mss without correction Of this evil in divorce
law
Tho exception allowed by law to the above statute
forbidding the divorced defendant TO remarry Is
another instance of unfortunate legislation. Five
wears after the decree, he may show 10 the court that
his divorced wife has remarked that he has led an
exemplary life I'm the meantime, and if the judge Is
satisfied Of this, be grant leave TO the defendant
10 remarry. This statute passed. as IS well known
to meet the requirements of the case of single in
divdual living in this city, who possessed sufficient
influence TO secure its enactment. Tho abuses 10
which IT may be subjected apparent.
These are only two defects In the New-YOrk divorce
laws. A perusal of Mr.. LloydS book Will convince
the reader that the skirts of many other states
no cleaner. If excellent uniform Federal divorce
law is an mpossibility, at all events let the divorce
laws of the individual States be thoroughly purified.