The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1896-11-17

bate courts TO grant divorces was ap-
proved but the reason for the holding
was changed. The Official reports of
the territory note me as dissenting IN
this case on the rehearing. but this Is an
error, as / die not participate in II at
all, but had / dissented and given rea-
sons for It they would have been based
| largely upon grounds OF public policy,
which would have appealed most siren
uously TO the rigid rule of law laid down
in the opinion. In this case al this time
the court has held that the ninety-day
statute in the marriage act had refer
ence only TO district courts. and the two
year statute reference both TO district
and probate courts, the effect or which
places in question every divorce granted
! by the probate court unless toe apph-
cant had resided in the territory for two
years prior TO instituting suit
Since September 1894 the probatecourts
have not exercised jurisdiction In divorce
cases. exclusive jurisdiction under the
, law and the adjudged cases resting in the
| district course. The ninety-day statute
was in force until last March or April.
when congress interfered by the passage
OF an act extending the period OF resi-
dence TO one year.
The third session Of the legislative as
sembly, sitting in January. 1895. under
took 10 legaliZe all the DEGREES granted
by the probate courts by the passage or
general curative act While this was
doubtless well meant. no lawyer will seri-
ously contend that such an act would
make valid the judgments rendered by
court that had no jurisdiction whatever
over the subject matter OF the action.
Still later. in September. 1896. the SUI
preme court in deciding the case OF Beach
1 nrrfr sgs,
seriously threatens every ninety-day d.
vorce granted in the. territory even by
district courts.
Now, 10 summarize:
1. The pretended curative act OF the
| legislative assembly of January. 1895.
cannot have the effect of rendering void
| judgments valid and affects the situa-
ton no more than II it had not been
| passed.
.. The doctrine laid down by the SUI
preme court in the recent case OF Beach
VS.. Beach imperiis every ninety-day d.
vorce granted in the territory II proper
/ iy attacked.
2. No divorce granted by the probate
courts of the territory from first 10 last IL
valid unless the plaintiff had resided In
the territory two years prior to bringing
| the action.
4. All divorces granted by the probate
| courts from the date of the organization
\ OF the courts OF that territory until Sep
4 TENDER, 1894. where the plaintiff was not
! a bona fide resident in good faith OF the
! territory for two years prior 10 the fAng
OF the action. are void
5. AL divorces granted by the probate
courts from August. 1888. the date when
| the repeal of the statute OF 1891 took ef-
| feet. to September, 1894. are without a
single exception absolutely void.
The appalling legal status of hundreds
| OF persons who hold illegal DEGREES grant
ed in that Jurisdiction. many OF them, no
| doubt, remarked and now living in
bigamy and adultery and bringing forth
spurious issue. il seems 10 me should
awaken the country 10 a realization OF
| that will prevent a repetition OF such
| disastrous and widespread consequences
| IN the future there or elsewhere
To secure the passage OF a uniform d.
yorce law Is not so easily accomplished.
As IL Is. every state in the Union has its
own law upon this subject, adopted BY
| its own lawmanking power. Bona fide
residents may invoke the benefits OF these
| laws.
The constitution Of the United State,
! provides that full faith and credit ehan
| be given in each state OF the acts. records
u
state; that the citizens in each state shall
be entitled to all the privileges and I'M
munities OF citizens OF the several states
/ and that all persons born orDaturalized
in the United States and subject 10 the
| jurisdiction thereof are citizens OF the
| United States and OF the state wherein
! they reside.
The individual as well a the state can
| demand full credit and faith 10 judicial
| proceedings that affect him and full vim
! dicatiOn Of his rights. A judgment in
divorce granted In one state 70 a bona
| tde resident. according TO the law Of that
state. must be given full faith and credit
| in any other state. though IL may not be
granted on grounds recognized In such
1 other state
UNIFORM LAW NECESSARY
! Divorce is a rightful subject OF Ieris-
Ia,son I'm the various states and terri
tories. II IL neither civil nor criminal IL
il sui generis. II was formerly the sub
1ect OF eccIesi zsticsl Jurisdiction.
/ IN this country Il IL entirely the crea-
I ton Of statute and. while marriage may
l,e soIeuaized By authority - the church.
| the dissolution Is entirely Win such court
/ as may Be designated by the lsxnaking
| power % the Jurisdiction. or. unless pro
/ aib.ted by the constitution. the ls~rnsk-
/ ing power Itself may Dissolve the MAJ
rage. Prior 70 1857 the subject OF IL
vorce "a England belonged 20 the eccIes-
I izsticzl courts and % parliament In 1871
| chapter =. statutes % and = Wet. gave
exclusive Jurisdiction IN al matrimonial
cases. but nov s3carnat:sTs are 1eard u
/ the divorce and probate division u TIE
high court o: Justice. with the Tig5t %
appeal
In our oEn country divorces have f-e-
| queaily been granted By ss% state isgis-
! lztures We have record % oce granted
IN Ore>on IN Is52. which vac B2seid ~
1 The United Stats supreme court Ia ne
| case % Maynard Va Hill Il has b<ca