Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1901-05-25


peppermint sticks. and only one who
has tried to consume whole jar of
these sweets by himself knows how
cloying they may become. Neverthc.
less, riches as source OF power ana
force will go on alluring mankind to the
end of the chapter. AS Emerson says:
"Some men are born to own. and can
animate all their possessions. Others
cannot: their owning Is not graceful:
seems to he a compromise of their char
acter: they seem to steal their own
dividends. They should own who can
administer: not they who hoard and
conceal: not they who. the greater pro.
prietors they are. are only the greater
bcggars. but they whose work carves
out work for more. opens path for
ALL"
%e~
In its recent divorce case ruling, the
Supreme Court seems to have come as
near as 1t Is possible under the COnsti.
tuition to interpreting national uni.
form divorce law. by laying down a
national rule touching the validity of
divorces. The rule respects the rights
of the States to make their own mar.
riage laws, but 1t compels the citizens
of the various States to respect the
laws of the commonwealth In which
they are living in marital relations.
and 1t prevents them from securing by
default valid divorces on grounds
which are not considered sufficient In
the States where the relations Were
maintained. The court has decided Ia
three cases that a divorce to he valid
must be obtained in the State where
the matrimonial dOmicile of the parties
to 1t Is fixed. and that both the parties
to 1t must have brought themselves
within the jurisdiction of the courts Of
the State. In the case Of Bell vs. Bell.
the husband had obtained a temporary
residence In Pennsylvania ana then Sc.
cured a divorce from his wife OH the
ground Of desertlon. When the wife
brought suit for divorce In New York
the husband set up the Pennsylvania
decree as defense. But the Supreme
Court has held that as neither husband
nor wife had acquired a matrimonial
dOmicile In Pennsylvania, and that as
the wife had not been represented the
Pennsylvania decree was void In the
courts Of New York. In the case OF
| Atherton VS.. Anterior, the couple had
married In New York and had after.
ward moved to Kentucky. The wife
left the husband and returned to New
York. and he secured divorce In Ken.
lucky OH the ground Of desertion and
set up the Kentucky decree as n de.
Tense to his wife's suit In New York
State. The New York courts held tina /,
the Kentucky decree was invalid, but
the United Safes Supreme Court sus.
tains the Kentucky divorce, as the cou.
| pie had Il matrimonial dOmicile In tina,
State. In the case Of Strcitwolf vs..
| StreitwOlf there had been a separation
In New Jersey and the husband subse.
lucntly sold out his business and went
to North Dakota, remaining there
eighteen months, securing q voting
residence and serving on the Cover.
nor's staff rs an aid. He secured n di.
vorce In that State, serving the pa.
pers on his wife by publication, but the
wife made no appearance In the Da.
kota court. The wife sued for divorce
| In New Jersey after the husband re.
turned to the East, and he set up his
| Western decree rs defense. but the
New Jersey courts held that that de.
cree was invalid and the Supreme
| hno 20 nn hn
The decision In these three cases seems
| to mean that no divorce Is valid unless
| obtained In q State In which the hus.
band and wife have lived together, un.
less the wife or husband Is represented
| by counsel ut the time OF the trial. The
wife may not leave her husband and
get divorce from him In Sioux Falls.
for instance, unless she has lived with
him In South Dakota. or unless he puts
In a defense.
40
Publication Of the Heron divorce pa
pers, the Chicago Chronicle declares
disclOses one Of the most scandalOus
transactions ever judicially approved
In civilized country. The wife alleged
desertion Of herself and children, fruit
OF i've years marriage. The husband
did not deny the charge, but, although
VIGOROUSLY impecunious and profes
sionally opposed TO the right of private
property, he settled upon his wife ali
mony so generous that her attorneys
| advised the court of her acceptance OF
the settlement, and thus the proceed
ings came to an end. The money, 1t Il
well known, was provided by anothe,
| person for whom, 1t Is equally well
known, Prof. Heron abandoned Iii.
lawful wife and family. The precedent
thus judically set is fraught with i'm
measurable harm. II husbands and
wives may be bought Off or on with tho
aid of the courts civilization has de
generated TO a depth beside which
Mormonlsm assumes an aspect Of NOR
al grandeur. The court doubtless had
no alternative. The deserted wife was
confronted with the necessity of going
10 a public pOOrhOuse at whose door
she would be separated from her chill
dren. She did not bribe the court Il
| give her decree. That would have
been hers anyway. Had the court beer
able to provide for the subsistence OF
the deserted wife and children other
wise he would have rejOiced to send
the miscreant father to penitentiary
there to work, that his labor might bt
used In part to contribute to the main
tenance Of those helpless ones he had