Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-09-22
DISTRICT DIVORCES
One in Fifteen Marriages Seems to
Be a Failure.
INTERESTING FACTS FROM THE RECORDS
How Unhappy Couples May Be
Separated in the District.
ARGUMENTSAG SECRECY

During the seven months ending the 10th
IF last April there were filed in the District
Supreme Court one hundred and two De-
Htions for divorce. That number repre-
scented just about one-fifteenth of the num-
Der of marriage licenses issued in the Dis
trict during that period; so that for every
fifteen marriages taking place here during
that time there was filed one application
for divorce
An investigation Of the court records dur
Ing the last five years by a Star reporter de-
veloped the fact that between the Goth Of
September. 1888. and the Goth of April, 1889,
there were filed here seventy-one petitions
for divorce. which was also about one to
every fifteen marriages taking place in the
District during those seven months. The
records also developed about the same pro-
portion of applications for divorce to mar
riages during each OF the past five years.
So that the not infreouently made state
ment that divorces were alarmingly or I'M
usually increasing in the District cannot
be substantiated by the official court rec
ords- Nor can the seemingly popular be-
lief that a divorce can be obtained tn the
District easily and without publicity be
successfully maintained by the court rec
ords.
Papers Are ometimes withheld.
1t - true tHat uHHeT a peculiar prdctlce
authorized by the District Supreme Court
the evidence and even the grounds relied
upon by an applicant for divorce can be,
and frequently are, withheld from publica-
tion- Yet the fact that a certain man or
woman has petitioned for divorce can al
ways be promptly ascertained from an in
spection of the court records. So, too. can
be ascertained the fact of the denial or
granting of the petition. But, beyond those
two simple facts. nothing can be learned
from the court records in those cases
wherein the court has directed that the pa
pers be kept from public view. There is
no rule formally adopted and promulgated
by the court TO cover such cases, it being
tacitly understood by the members of the
bar that whenever, in filing for a client
petition Tor divorce, they see proper to ask
that the papers in the case be kept secret,
the clerk IS authorized to so keep them.
At times the desire of counsel to keep such
cases from the notice of the public has
prompted the clerk. on entering suits for
divorce on the court docket. to therein de-
scribe them as suits for partition 1t re-
manned for Star reporter. however, to
disclose the scheme. and that subterfuge is
no longer reSortei to to hide the fact that
John Smith has petitioned fer divorce
from Mary Ann Smith. that Maria Jones
has sought freedom from Bill Jones.
Opposed to This Practice.
The wisdom and propriety of maintaining
universally believed in by the members of
the bar. The following expressions by a
member of the District bar whose abilities
and judgment have caused him to be COR
sidered by many it's leader fifty state the
position of the opponents OF secrecy IN di-
vorce cases: II seriously doubt both the
propriety and legality of this practice of
Withholding from the public eye papers fled
in suits for divorce Whenever such secrecy
is directed that fact is stated in tine ews-
papers. with the result that the very worst
things possible are instantly attributed to
the man or woman who, as the case may be,
Is so unfortunate as to be made the defend
ant in the suit. But the matter is made far
worse when, as is often the case, Of course
the secretly maintained grounds OF the ap-
phcation are not substantiated by the evil
dence and the petition is denied. For. al
though the unfortunate defendant in such a
case makes successful legal escape from
the disgrace naturally and Invariably at
taching to defendant in suit for divorce.
there is no such escape in the eyes of THE
pubic at large. The public remembers only
this: that the papers in the case We're with
held from its eye. and. being convinced by
that fact that the matters in the case were
too horrible to lie publicly stated, ever after
ward holds to that opinion
No Court Should COuntenance Secrecy.
Il am. Of course continued the lawyer
aware that the court permits secrecy in d.
vorce cases on the ground of public policy
but 1 must confess that cannot SO agree.
In the first place. a court CT law should
never. in my humble opinion, countenance
secrecy in any case coming before it, and in
the second place, 1 cannot see true con-
sistency in any court which Will In one
class of cases direct secrecy and not direct
IL in all cases coming before II. Suspicion,
diStruSt and IiSreSpect arise in every in
stance where a court of law permits d-
reefs secrecy. Besides. IL is simply impos-
sible to keep anything secret from news
paper people. IL you want the facts, you
will get them, and Ill ;he courts in the land
could not keep them from you. If they are
unfit for publication Trey are not published,
SO L cannot see any good which is accom-
plished by this practice of secrecy. 1t is
believe, an uHwise. improper proceeding,
and one repugnant to the American love Of
fair play and publicity"
Two Forms of Divorce.
There are in the District two forms of d.
vorce. the first being from the bond of mar
rage and the second from bed and board
The first is what may be termed an abso-
lutte divorce. and the second is merely a
legal separation. The law prevailing in the
District. found in sections 13S and 739 of
the United States Revised Statutes relating
to the District of Columbia, provides that a
divorce from the bond of marriage-an alb
solute one-may be granted In any of the
Following cases: ], where such marriage
was contracted while either of the parties
thereto had a former wife or husband liv-
ing, unless the former marriage had been
lawfully dissolved and no restraint imposed
on the party contracting such second mar
rage; :, where such marriage was con-
lraeted during the iunacy OF either party:
8, where either party was matrimonially
incapacitated at the time of the marriage:
4. where either party has committed adul-
terry during the marriage; >, for habitual
drunkenness for a period of three years of
the party complained against; g. for cruelty
OF treatment. endangering the life or health
OF the party complaining. and T. for wilIful
assertion and abandonment by the party
complained of against the party complain.
lrg Tor the full, uninterrupted space Of two
years. Va WV
IL VIII be observed that the law does not
say mat divorce shall be granted where
lhe party complained of is guilty of one or
more OF the above stated ofrenses but mere
~ states that a divorce from the bond of
marriage may be granted. Hence the court
may. IN It's discretion, refuse Il divorce even
Wnere the offense or Offensas alleged in tho
Dill OF complaint have been proven To the
SQUIRT satisfaction. Not infrequently this
uiscretlon Is exercised by the court espe-
cldiy IN those cases where the court has
~ hot h.