The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-16
A QUESTION OF DOMICILE
The Supreme Court Deals a Blow
TO Dakota Divorces.
Separations Thus Secured Not Legal
in States Where Parties Have
Their Place of Residence-Other
Importapt Decisions Rendered.

Important Decisions Rendered.
The practice Of obtaining divorces in
the Dakotas and other States where an
nulment of matrimonial ties is made
easy was given a serious blow in the
Supreme Court yesterday by decisions III
three cases declaring the divorces so Oh
tained ia be null and void In the courts
of the States where the couple iegaiy
resided.
Two of these cases were appeals from
the Supreme Court of New York. whlch
decided against the outside divorces In
one of these cases that of Bell against
BeH-tf1e husband obtained divorce in
PENNSYLVANIA by acquiring temporary
residence there. alleging desertion on the
mart of the wife. Mrs. Bell brought suit
in New York, and the husband interviewed
with the Pennsylvania decree. The ST.
preme Court held, however, that neither
the wife nor husband had acquired a
dornicile in Pennsylvania, and for that
reason the decree of divorce granted by
the court of that State was without faith
or credit in the courts of New York.
In another case. Atherton VS.. Atherton,
the circumstances are different, and while
the judgment of the Supreme Court of
New York is reversed, the general prin-
ciple of matrimonial domicile is sustained.
The couple were married in Oneida Coun-
ty. N Y, the residence of the bride and
went to Louisville, Ky, to live. In con-
sequence of alleged cruel treatment the
wife returned to her mother and Ather-
ton sued in Louisville for divorce, on the
ground of abandonment. Mrs. Atherton
made no response TO service of notice, but
after the decree had been granted brought
suit in New York. Atherton defended the
suit. claiming priority by the Kentucky
decree. but the court decided against him,
as did also the Supreme Court of New
Work, 10 which he took an appeal. JUS
lice Gray stated the opinion of the court
Yesterday saying the question was wheth-
er the matrimonial domicile was in Ken
lucky or New York. 1t appeared that ii
was in Louisville. and that as the wife had
abandoned her husband she was bound by
the decree of the kentucky court and
could not bring suit in New York.
Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Peck
ham dissented on the ground that the
misconduct on the part of the husband
had driven the wife back to the State in
which they were married and that as the
matrimonial domicile was in New York
the decree obtained in Kentucky was in
valid.
The third case was what might be
called typical Dakota divorce case. Au-
gust Streitwolf, of New Brunswick, y. j.,
whose wife was forced to leave him, as it
is alleged, because of cruel treatment in
1896. sold out his business and took up
his residence at Mandaw, n. D., the next
year He remained there eighteen months,
not only sufficient time to give him a
standing in the divorce courts there, but
He also went into business, voted at an
election, and served as an aide on the
Governors staff He was granted a de-
cree of divorce in October, 1897, service be-
ing made by publication in the North
Dakota papers. He returned to New Jer-
sey in November. 1897 to answer a suit
for divorce instituted in the chancery
court by his wife, and set up the North
Dakota divorce in opposition to it. That
court not only declared the North Dakota
divorce null and void. but perpetually en-
Joined Streitwolf from relying on it in
his wifes suit or any other she might
bring.
2 Streitwolf carried it on appeal to the
court of errors and appeals in the last
resort, and when that tribunal decided
against him, brought it to the Supreme
Court on writ of error, setting up the
plea that the New Jersey courts had not,
as provided by section of the Con-
stitution, given full faith and credit
to the public acts, records, and
judicial proceedings of the State of
North Dakota.
The court holds that like the proceed
ing cases, neither husband nor wife had
acquired matrimonial domicile in North
Dakota, and that the divorce obtained in
that State was, therefore. without faith
or credit in the courts of New Jersey.
thus affirming the judgment of the courts
below.
The tax of 10 cents on export bills OF
lading imposed by the War Revenue law
was yesterday declared invalid by the
Supreme Court, the decision, however. be-
ing that Of a bare majority of the judges.
The test case was brought in the United
States Court for the District Of Minnesota
by Frank N. Fairbanks, that court up
holding the tax. Fairbanks contended
the tax was in CONFIRMATION of the pro-
vision of the Constitution that mo tax
for duty shall be laid on articles exported
from any State"
The exports in question were destined
for Liverpool and Fairbanks resisted pay
ment of the export tax on the ground it
was unconstitutional. Justice Brewer de-
livered the opinion of the court, declaring
the tax invalid on the ground that a
stamp tax on a foreign bill of lading is
In effect equivalent to a tax on the ar
ucles included in that bill of lading, and,
therefore, tax or duty on exports and
in conflict with the constitutional pro-
hibition.
justices Gray, White, McKenna, and
Harlan dissented. The latter opposed the
decision Of the court because it was di-
rectly contrary to the uniform practice of
the Government, since the foundation. A
similar tax had been imposed in the early
days Of the Republic, many of those who
helped frame the Constitution being mem
bers of the Congress which passed it,
Again in 1862 a tax of the same character
was laid, and in all that time until now
there had never been any question as to
its constitutionality. He thought great
weight should be given TO this unbroken
precedent. and could not, therefore, agree
with the decision of the court.
Charles A. Gardiner. of New York, on
behalf of the New England Tobacco
Growers Association. yesterday asked
the Supreme Court for permission to file
a memorandum OF law and some new and
original arguments in the case of Delima
against Bidwell. one OF the Porto Rican