The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1891-09-30
AN lNDISSULUBLE ilt..
AN IMPORTANT DECISION BY JUDGE
JAS. =. lZLAR.

AN IMPORTANT DECISION BY JUDGE
JAS. z. iZLAR.
Marrlurrs Contracted After Il Divorce -
Granted in Another State are Illegal.
Other State. Cannot Coutrov~rt Our
Laws.
All important decision Was lately
rendered 10y Judge I2lar IN a case COM
ing before him on appeal from Pro-
bate Coult, rs it fixes the status OF par
ties married IN South Carolina aud
securing a divorce Ill another State.
The case arose thus: Thomas NJ. Peo-
pies married. in This State, afterward
went to Florida, where be secured a
divorce aud remarked, and afterward
returned to this Stale. On his death
letters Of administration Were granted
to Eowlanu VI. Peoples, his son by the
Florida marriage, aud petition Was
made To the Probate Court Of Colleton
County u Lave the letters of admins
tratiuu revoked and granted to the
petitioner, Georgianna White.
AS matter OF law the Judge OF Pro
bate found that there was no ground
for revoking the letters OF admlnlstra-
ton previously granted to Rowland W..
Peoples, that under the facts before
him Rowland W. Peoples Is the leglll-
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 dlcta
OF the South Carolina Judges. holding
that d 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-
tracsed in this State, yet the decree OF
divorce In Florlda dissolved that mar
riage, and hence the second marriage ID
the state OF Florida was valid, and the
issue thereof, Rowland W. Peoples.
was legitimate" and thus finding the
judge of Probate dismissed the petit
tion.
After considering questions relating
to the first marriage In this State, the
securing OF domIcile in Florida. and
the purpose thereof, and the subsequent
second marriage, Judge Izlar says:
1t how becomes necessary to consider
the force and effect of said judgment OF
divorce. The American doctrine OF
divorce is clearly stated by Stewart In
the 5lh vol. of the Am. and Eng. Ency.
OF Law, 746 ct sec. From Mr.. Stewart
it appears that every State has the
right to regulate Its OWL. domestic
policy; to determine the status Of Its
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 be Valid within its
own territory. But no State has pri-
mar,ly the right TO push its domestic
policy beyond its boundaries and into
other States, or to dissolve the marriage
or CD ange the domestic status OF per
sons 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 OF international 1sW,
or by virtue of some paramount law,
such as the United states Constitution,
or treaty between nations The
principles enunciated by Mr.. Stewart
On this subject will doubtless be &C
cepted in all States where divorces are
allowed by law, but in South Carolina
divorce q ci1culo is not allowed by law.
Here the marriage contract IL regarded
as lndissoluble by any human means,
and 1t has always been considered as
contrary to pubic policy, and as op-
posed to the gool order and well being
OF society, 10 dissolve by divorce the
sacred bonds Of matrlmOny.
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-
dorse7nent Of all the citizens of lntelll-
aellce and culture in the State. 1t is
true that at one time in the history Of
the State. when 1t was ruled ny the alien
and the stranger, and when the General
Assembly was composed principally OF
corrupt freebooters and Ignorant ne-
groes. the stern policy" which bad pre-
viously 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 again took the place OF ignorance
aud vice, the "stern policy" Was resum.
Cd, and has ever since been firmly ad-
hered TO and jeal0usly guarded.
am inclined to think that the divorce
under consideration, even If tested by
o. a "a h6,i9
valid to affect the matrimonial status
of Caroline Peoples. Under the CIR
cumstances OF this Case ALI persuaded
that the decree OF divorce could do no
more than affect the matrimonial status
Of Thomas NJ. Peoples. Itcould not, in
my opinion. fix, regulate and control
the status of Caroline Peoples, who at
all times had been IN lnhabitant and
citizen of South Carolina.
Had Thomas 81. Peoples continued
his residence IN the State Of Florida,
and had the operation OF the Judgment
of dIyorce been confined to that State.
South Carolina would have been com
pelled TO acqui.sce in the status fixed
upon MIN by that decree, but when he
quit his domiciie OF choice and returned
TO his domicile Of origin. the Judgment
of divorce ceased to shield tim. 1t
could not push IT'S effects out into South
Carolina to the defeat Of It's settled pol
Icy. The status OF Thomas NJ. Peoples
acquired by that judgment IN Florida
cannot be recognized III him as citizen
OF South Carolina. There is no princi-
pie OF county which demands this Of
South Carolina. 1t he would enjoy the
liberty given by the decree of divorce
then he must remain IN the State OF
Florida Let the rule contende1 for in
this case be once established, then sure
Iy will the peace OF society be jeopar.
dlzed, the marriage bonds Ge weakened,
and the door which has BEEN so long
and so faithfully guarded by 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
q laYer syStnm DrpYallS Here it is