The times., 1898-10-16
Uniformity in Divorce.

Uniformity in Divorce.
The most important result of the con-
sideration of the divorce questions by
| the Protestant Episcopal Convention
was the introduction of a resolution by
Mr. Trask. of Albany. which was vir-
tually a petition to Congress for uni
formity in the laws governing divorce.
1t recites the fact which has been the
burden of many resolutions by different
organizations. that owing to the diverse
character of the laws of different
States, innocent persons, especially
children, are sometimes placed under
ban after the legal requirements of
State have been complied with.
The widespread opposition to Federal
interference with the concerns of the
people of the States is well grounded
in most cases. Yet when there is in
volved hardship in the collection of
debts by creditors in another State
than that in which the debtor lives. 1t
is agreed that expediency makes ii wise
to enact a general bankruptcy law. OF
quite as much Importance is the inius-
tice often visited on people by the lack
of uniformity in divorce laws; and
when 1t is found that the aim of the
people of State is practically defeated
by this lack it is obvious that a Fed
eraI enactment is more beneticent than
harmful.
For example. the people of New York
disapprove of divorce except on the
biblical ground, and their laws are
framed on that basis. Yet citizens of
the commonwealth go to South Dakota
and obtain a decree on another ground.
marry agin. and return TO the State.
where their new relations are recogniz-
ed as lawful. Here, then, is clear
abrogation of the law that represents
the sentiment of the people. In other
cases, persons who are divorced, mar
ried again, and have children, may be
regarded by the laws of another State
into which they move as living in adul-
terry and their children may be illegiti-
mate The complications are many
and have been often described. In
South Carolina all divorce is prohibit
ed; in South Dakota and in Oklahoma,
the laws are more than liberal, solely
with the view of attracting people of
means who are unhappy in their mar
riage relations.
This extreme of difference cannot be
said to represent a difference in the
sentiment of the various States. AT an
early period in our history the civiliza-
ton of one State was quite unlike that
of another What was regarded in Vir-
ginia with favor was wicked or bias
phemous to the people of New England.
Now that intercourse by means of
newspapers and travel is easy, it is
only in the small isolated communities
that peculiar ideas and customs are
found. The trend of thought is much
the same, the people are interested in
much the same affairs in all sections of
the country. Natural conservatism, and
perhaps feeling of pride in the dis
tinction, may prevent the people of
South Carolina from enacting divorce
laws. but it would be no real hardship
to impose on that State regulations
that would be acceptable to a vast ma
jority of the American people. 1t
would be no moral affliction to the peo-
pie of South Dakota if they should be
prohibited from making a money profit
out of divorce laws that shock the
moral sentiment of the great body of
citizens.
Indeed. no one will deny that the
cause of good morals gains more than
it loses by the moderate laws of divorce
that would result from the compromise
effected by the representatives from
every part of the country. New York
which authorizes divorce only on the
biblical ground, but is forced to rec
ognize in some degree the divorce of its
own citizens who go to South Dakota
to accomplish their purpose, is no worse
off if the liberal statutes of South Da-
kota are abolished as result of gen.
eral law that permits divorce for other
causes. There is an advantage in re-
moving the incentive to fraud and in de-
stroying the unwholesome influence OF
too-easy divorce.