The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-03-11
THE NEW DISTRICT CODE
The Divorce Provisions Regarded
With Grave Apprehension.
CodIfcation of Laws Useful and
Necessary Step 4 Nnst Body of
statutes EPitomizcd in Concrete
Transformation Ross Views

The action of Congress in adopting the
District code has received almost univer-
sal approval, especially by lawyers. The
laws of the District are now at least
summarized in a compact form, easy OF
reference, and. easy to comprehend. In
this respect ,he newly adopted code serves
both as an epitCme of law and an index
Of the great body Of acts OF Congress.
acts of the Legislative Assembly, ordi-
nances of the Corporation of Washing
ton and of Georgetown, and the ordi-
nances of the Levy Court, to say nothing
of the old Maryland laws and the English
statutes in force in the State of Maryland
prior to 1900.
All this volume of legislation has been
gathered together by experts and epito-
mised into the laws embodied in the Dis
trict code. From this time on, it will be
possible for a lawyer to ascertain what
statutes bear upon a certain subject
without searching a library of law and
running tn. risk of missing some obscure
and forgotten statute, upon which the
contention in a given case might turn.
In general terms the code is a great ad-
vance for the legal profession.
In speaking of the matter to a Times
reporter, a prominent lawyer said yester-
day that the adoption Of the code was a
matter of necessity. if the lawyers of the
District We're to know the law. The time
spent, he said, in searching the statutes
bearing upon an important case has been
enormous. 1t was necessary not only to
examine the recent acts of Congress, he
said, which means those passed since 1871,
but It is necessary to traverse the whole
field Of legislation in colonial Maryland,
including much old English law. This
was difficult even for the older lawyers
Of the District, he continued, while for
young lawyer. or one who settled here
after practicing in one OF the States, the
task was almost insurmountable. The
code, he said, will prove to be a great
labor saving device, and If for no other
reason, that is sufficient to warrant all
the hard work done by the compilers.
ut should be recalled this man con-
tinued. that the effort to reduce the
laws OF the District to a code was not
confined to the gentleman who made the
present code. The matter was discussed
as long ago rs 1873 when a committee of
the Bar Association, including bright
young lawyer who has since died, com
piled a code. 1t was presented to Con-
gress about that time. but was not act
ed upon. From that time and before the
need of what has now been done was fully
recognized, it is somewhat surprising
that the lawyers Of the District did not
long before this rise up and demand the
codification OF our laws so that the ord-
nary attorney could know what he was
doing without sleepless vigils hunting
statutes in the old books. Then, too, the
cost of fitting up an office library has
been very expensive. If an attorney want
ed only the common books upon law it
was necessary to lay out large sums for
books alone to have at hand the tools
of his trade. Now, with an edition of the
code and the law library the attorney
will get along better than he did before.
The code not only gives the law on any
subject but is an index Of the original
books where the statutes are to be found
In my opinion the code is weakest in
the few places where the compiers and
the committees in Congress incorporated
certain laws in the code at the instance
Of outsiders. The divorce law is one of
them. As it appears to me the statute
in this code is a thousand times worse
than the original District law on the SUBJ
ject. 1t was introduced in Congress at
the instigation of the Reform Bureau, in
which the Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts was
prominent. These good people would not
rest until they had fixed up the divorce
law 10 suit their advanced ways of think |
ing, and sorry mess they have made Of
it,
Under our former law a woman who |
married a brute for a husband. who |
abused her, and with whom no self-re- |
speeding woman could live, could secure a |
divorce, and when opportunity offered !
could marry again man with whom she |
could i've IN peace, happiness. and com |
fort. This arrangement did not suit the |
reformers- II a girl in her innocence and |
lneNperlence weds herself to a worthless !
man and finds out after while that he is |
unworthy OF her love OF even her respect. |
they have fixed the law so that this !
woman may separate from the inhuman |
husband, but she must bear his name and |
the stigma of her marriage with him for
ever. She cannot marry again. This law
IS simply infamous, whoever its author or
authors. If that is the teaching of re
IlSlOn, the sooner modern society is done !
with II the better. 1t is simply mOnstrous !
that an American woman IN the District |
OF columbia, cannot correct a fatal mis-
legal manner. 1t is certainly to be hoped
that an enlightened community will in the
near future see TO it that this miserable
law is wiped out of the code
II i remember right the Commission |
ers OF the District opposed the law when |
II was referred to them. / believe that
commissioner Ross wrote and spoke
against II while ii was under consiGera-
ton, and that his wise counsel went I'M
needed.
This is the worst feature Of the nev
code, though there are others that will
fall under consideration as time goes on
The great advantage is that after these
laws have passed under judicial decision
they can DE amended or even repealed |
without injury TO the code as a whole II
VIII probably be found that the code will
have period Of growth, change. and i'm
provenent during the greater part OF the /
century,
Commissioner Ross was asked to give
his views Of the new code. He stated ]
that the cOmpilers in the main had done
their work well and that the code would /
be a most useful thing to the attorneys |
pracucing IN the District. He said IL was
time the laws We're codified, and that the
District was only taking it's place beside
the more progressive States in that par
ticular He believed the code in the
main was a good one, and that in the
few particulars in which il was defective
1t would be improved in the future by
the usual process OF amendment.
When asked ABOUT the divorce law re-
ferred 10 above Commissioner Ross asked
to be excused from saying anything. He
said the bill had been passed and that
when II was UP for consideration he had
expressed himself against the law. The
reports then made embOdy my opinion of
The law, he said, and YOU may refer TO
them. My opinion has not changed, but
1 think II wise to refrain from saying
anything now.
Among the papers referring TO the law
in question the following letter written
by Mr.. Ross on June g. 1860. gives his
views upon the subject:
The laws Of the District now authorize (
divorces from the bond Of marriage for
the following causes. intcralia.
For habitual drunkenness for a period
OF three years of the party complained
against
=" For cruelty Of treatment endaugering
planning
This proposed legislation would prevent
women who have husbands who treat