The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-09-03
r,.roRM DIVORCE LAWS.

RI. ,,,eution Of uniform divorce laws
sor an ~ The alfferen, states is one which
has been much discussed among members
OF the bar. and II was quite natural that
il should have been among the topics dis
cussea at the meeting OF the American
Bar Association held last week. The senti-
ment In favor Of uniform legislation upon
this subject. and also upon the subject OF
marriage, was practically unanimous
The great difficulty standing In the way
Is the practical lmpossihllty. for the pres
snt and until the subject Is so discussed
as 10 arouse strong popular Interest In II,
~ pro-urinE the proper legislation from al
q The different states,
4 bsll was submitted to the Bar Assoeia-
ton as form Of the law which should be
enacted in every state. This proposed
law requires two years residence In a
state before a complaint fer divorce can
oe died. that personal service should be
had In ali cases possible: that each divorce
case DO heard in open court. and no default
should be- grated until the Judge is salts
fed that all proper means have been taken
to notify the defendant. II also provides
punishment Tor advertising an oGeg 10 Sc
cure and assist In procuring a divorce.
All of these provisions. excepting that
in Fviatson to the length Of residence and
the one IN relation 70 adyertis.ag. are con-
tagnee in the laws 81 tie state q Wash
uglcn. 50 that amendments would neces-
sarily b. bat slight to bring our statutes
in gns slsh the proposed uniform law.
The bill. as drafted. lacks Ia some particu-
lars In rotation to which the existing d.
VERGE laws Of the states are very defective.
and in which uniformity % statute Is far
mere necessary than il Is IN mere matters
Of procedure. which. It seems. is al the
proposed Law attempts 70 deal with
Fer example some o. The states refuse
90 recognize divorces granted n other
states. unless both parties are resident OF
tae state IN which the divorce Is granted.
4 married couple may separate n New
York. Hna the husband take Up his resl.
dencs II the state 81 Washington. Here
he nay procure divorce. with ths fnl
knowledge os his former N3fe n1ay re-
MARRY HtNa nave p kHFaftAF ~ x az fE~
turns with hts new family 70 New York
the courts 81 that state viii refuse 70
recognise as divorce ard renarriaEe. may
cornpel bun 20 contribute 20 tAe support
g Bis divorced wlss. ana. sasu,3 ao die.
his children would he susmauaea as
n,rEttimaso ard trey ooal3 nor inherit bis
property. That such a condition e things
Is possible n eats country IS a scandal
upon tire Administration q the las. Yes
May sacA cases hays s>eu recorded.
IRE uac-s essential feature. would
seem. q any uniform system q divorce
avs sAonia ee shs Tecexnsstcn a. tAe Law
e tas validity q al divorces granted Ia
ether states having the ssas e. sebastian
tally similar divorce laws. Unasr TIE
gressnt tax system ig Is possible Tor a rnaa
ss have a lawfal VIE an. legitimate chH-
AREA IN ;we eE tAres d.ssreas states ~ TIE
sane time
Tae necessity r. gE.fera marriage laws
: squaGy strong Narrssse r. eve-y
state n the Uu.sa. sseeis - a matte
= pgbi.c rscer3. ana TIE ss-caits4 s-colu-
saao aaw~ marriages saeala eassr Ne CIR
cssussfancss - rssseeris.A Marriage Is
nos natter nsss1y sSSsee= tAs gzxslss