The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-05-31
DIVORCE DECISIONS.
Conforming to State Law.
By the U. S. Supreme Cour

By the U. s. Supreme court.
 The recent divorce decisions by the United States Supreme Court. so scn- sationally headlined in the daily pa pers merely conform. to State laws. and do not affect anyone except the parties in the cases on trial. There were three of these cases. In the first the parties were married in New York, which was the residence of the bride and lived In Kentucky. which was the residence of the husband. After three years, owing to cruel and abusive treatment, the wife left her husband and returned to her own State, an agreement or separation having been entered into between them. Two years later the wife, in Kentucky, on the ground of desertion, serving the notice of the ac- ton upon her by mail, in accordance with the laws of the State. There was no doubt that he was a bona hde resident of Kentucky at the time Of the suit. The Supreme Court holds that this decree is valid, and that other States must recognize Its validity, un- der the clause of the Constitution that full faith and credit shall be given in each State to public acts, records and Judicial proceedings of every other State."
 In the second case the parties were married in New York State and con- tinued to reside in New York State. The husband secured in the State or Pennsylvania a decree of divorce al- though he was not a bona ffde resident of Pennsylvania, and ten weeks before he filed his petition in that State had prescribed himself under oath, in a pe- tition for the probate of will In Erie County. in the State of New York, as n nf nn1lnfy The C0uTt held the decree of divorce granted by the Pennsylvania court null and void, because the court had no jurisdiction to grant a divorce to one who was not a bona flde resident of the State.
 In the third case parties were married in New Jer- sey and lived there as husband and wife for nine years. The wife then brought suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty, and one year later the nus band brought a suit against the wife in the State of North Dakota for di- vorce on the ground of her cruelty and intemperance. He never. in fact, re- sided in North Dakota, and apparent ly spent but three days in the State in one month and three days in an- other. The court held that the divorce obtained by him was void, because the State had no Jurisdiction to grant divorce to one not bona-fide resident of the State. The question whether State has a right by statute to deter mine what is residence for the purpose of securing divorce was one not pass upon by the court, since in neither of the two cases was there any such res idence by the plaintiff as compiled with even the provisions of the States, re- spectively of Pennsylvania and North Dakota.
 Interpreting the significance of these decisions for the lay reader, 1t may be said that where the plaintiff In divorce suit has a bona-fide residence in the State in which he brings pro- ceedings for divorce, and the divorce is granted by the court, and. accord- ing to the laws of that State. the de- cree of divorce must be recognized by the other States in the Union. But where he has no such bona-fide resi- dence, having gone to the State only temporarily for the purpose of bring ing the divorce proceedings, the decree of divorce is null and void, although granted by the State court in accord ance with the laws of that State. It Is null and void because the State has no Jurisdiction when neither of the par ties is bona-fide resident of the State. The court does not, however, determine what is necessary to constitute such bona -fide residence. The Outlook vcn- lures to suggest, in he light of this decision. to those who are agitating for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing for uni- form divorce laws. that simpler and less objectionable amendment would be one providing that no person obtain residence in any State for the purpose of divorce proceedings unless he has resided in the State for defined term say five years. This would at least put an end to what are called railroad divorces.''