The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1891-09-29
AN INDISSOLUBLE iIE.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION BY JUDGE
JAS. r. IZlAR.


Marriages Contracted AFTER IA Divorce is
Granted I'm Another stat. ARE Illegal.
Other States Cannot Controvsrt Our
Laws.
An important decision was lately
rendered by Judge Izlar i'm Il case cOsn-
ing before him on appeal from a Pro-
bate Court, as it fixes the status of par
ties married in South Carolina and
securing Il divorce III another State.
The case arose thus: Thomas Nj. Pe0-
pies married in thiS State, afttrward
went to Florida, where he secured Il
divorce and remarked, and afterward
returned to this State. On his death
letters of administration were granted
10 Rowland w. Peoples, his son hy the
Florida marriage, and petition was
made to the Probate Court of Coslpton
County to Lave the letters of adminis-
tration revoked and granted TO the
petitioner. Georgianna White.
AS matter Of law the Judge of Pro
bate found that there was no ground
for reyoking the letters Of admlnistra-
ton previously granted to Rowland w.
Peoples, that under the facts before
him Rowland w. Peoples Is the legiti-
mate son of Thomas Nj. Peoples, de-
ceased, "for. in the first place. there is
no evidence to show that the first mar
riage OF Thomas NJ. Peoples was cele
brated in this State, and hence the dicta
OF the South Carolina Judges. holding
that a marriage celebrated IN this State
cannot be dissolved save by the laws of
this State, have no application to the
case at bar; that even If the proof mad
shown that the first marriage was con-
trac.ed in this State, yet the decree of
divorce In Florida dissolved that mar
rage, and hence the second marriage in
the State Of Florida was valid, and the
issue thereof, Rowland W. Peoples,
was legitimate" and thus tinding the
Judge of Probate dismissed the peti-
tion
After considering questions relating
to the first marriage In this State, the
securing OF q domicile in Florida. and
the purpose thereof, and the subsequent
second marriage, Judge IZlar says:
It now becomes necessary to consider
divorce. The American doctrine of
divorce is clearly stated hv Stewart in
the 9th vol. of the Am. and Eng. Ency.
OF Law, 7i6 ct seq. From Mr.. Stewart
1t appears that every Stale has the
right to regulate it's own domestic
policy; to determine the status of It's
own citizens, and to choose for itself
the terms and conditions under which
its own Courts shall grant divorces,
and divorce granted in accordance
with its laws must he valid within it's
own territory. But no State has pri-
marily the right to push its domestic
policy beyond it's boundaries and into
other States, or to dissolve the marriage
or change the domestic status OF per
SnnS belonging to other States: and the
Acts OF one State have force and au-
thorlty IN other States only by consent
OF such States, that is To say by the
comfy OF nations or international law,
or ny virtue OF some paramount law,
such as the United States Constitution,
0" Il treaty between nations" The
principles enunciated hy Mr.. Stewart
on this subject will doubtless be ac-
ceptrd in all States where divorces are
allowed by law, but III South Carolina
divorce CincuiO is not allowed by law.
Here the marriage contract is regarded
as lndlSSollihle by amy human means,
ana 1t has always been considered as
contrary to pubic policy, and as op-
posed to the gooI order and well being
of society, TO dissolve 10y divorce the
sacred bonds of matrimony.
This policy has never at any time in
the history OF the State failed to have
the support and approval of the bench
and bar, and to receive the hearty en-
dorsement Of all the citizens of ntelh-
gence and culture in the State 1t is
true that AZ one time in the history of
the State, when 1t was ruled by the alien
and the stranger, and when the General
Assembly was composed principally of
corrupt freeb0ottrs and ignorant ne
groes, the stern policy" which had pre-.
VlouSly prevailed was relaxed. The
new policy which was thus forced upon
the State did not meet with favor. AS
soon, Therefore. as intelligence and vir-
tue asain took the place of ignorance
ana vice, the stern policy" WAS reslim.
CO. and has ever since been firmly adj
iicrtd 10 and jealousy guarded.
am inclined to think that the divorce
under CONSIDERATION, even il tested by
tn" American rules, would ne teid in.
valid to affect the matrimonial status
oi Caroline Peoples. Under tn" CIR
cumSjanceS OF this case | am persuaded
that the deere Of divorce conld do no
more than affect the matrimonia! status
Of Thomas NJ. Peoples. Itcould not, iD
my opinion. Iix, regulate and control
the Status Of Caroline Peoples, who mt
all times had been An inhabi,uut and
citizen OF South Carolina.
Had Thomas NJ. Peoples continued
his residence in the State of FlOridn,
and had the operation of the Judgment
OF diyOrce been cOnlined To that State,
South Carollna would have been com
PEELED 10 acqnitsce in the status liked
upon MIN 10y that decree, but when he
quit his domicile Of choice and returned
10 his domicle Of origin, the Judgment
of divorce ceased to shield him. 1t
could not push its effects out into South
Carolina to the defeat of it,, settled pol
icy. The status Of Thomas NJ. Peoples
acquired by that judgment III Florida
calinOt lie recognized in him as Il citizen
of South Carolina. There is no princ-
pie OF comfy which demands his of
South Carolina. II he wonld enjov the
liberty given by the decree OF divorce
hen he must remain in the State or
Florida. Let the rule contenJed for in
THIS case he once established, then sure
iy Will the peace OF society be jcopar.
diZed, the marriage bonds be weakened
and the door which has been SO long
and SO faithfully guarded 10y the bench
the bar and the Legislature of the State
be thrown wide open ito fraud, imposl-
tion and other immortality" In this
state where the common law prevails
the courts will ScrutiniZe with jealousy
divorces granted by other States where
laXer system prevails. Here it is
SOltmuly believed thaL "thp Drinci nle nj