The times., 1901-04-17

of New, Jersey decreed that the judg-
ment entered in the court of North Da-
I,ota was "wholIy void and of no et- |
feet"
This decision is now upheld by the
Supreme Court. in rendering the oplh-
ion of the bench Mr.. Justice Gray DIS
cussed the distinction between legal
and matrimonial residence. He brought
out the doctrine very clearly that un-
der our jurisprudence there is no such
thing as the conviction ant punish
ment or the inhiclion of per1Pn pains
and penalties lin contumacium.' A
court 10 have Jurisdiction of a case in
volving the relations and rights OF the
parties to the suit must have actual
Jurisdiction over both plaintiff ana de-
fendant Thus. the court held that
while the defendant Streitwolf did nave
a legal residence in North Dakota Wheh
the divorce was granted, he did not
have n matrimonial residence there. To
be binding. the proceedings must nave
included evidence that the wife against
whom a decree was sought was equally
a resident of the State, and had been
given the opportunity as such to appear
in court in person or by attorney. AS
the wife was not in fact or fiction
resident of North Dakota, and probably
had never seen the region. the judg-
ment was absolutely null and void, and
of no possible effect except, perhaps,
within the boundaries Of the State
granting the divorce.
The difference between legal and
Illegal divorces is thus clearly set forth
by the Supreme Court. and hereafter
persons desirous of escaping from the
bonds of matrimony will understand
the dangers they must incur if they
attempt to evade the law. Under for
mer Supreme Court decisions it has
been held that a divorce granted by
competent court, after proper hearing,
in the State in which both plaintiff and
defendant have their legal and matri-
monial residence is good throughout the
| United States: and that no other is
worth the paper upon which the de-
/ cree is written, with the exception
| above noted. which. however, does not
!
| outside of the State granting the di-
Norce.
| It has long been the custom for
/ the people of this country to plume
themselves upon the superior respect
shown in America to the marriage reia-
ton, and to family morals in general
Vanity of the national sort is much
/ like the personal variety; it is very
thin and full of humbug. For years
our loose system, or rather lack of any
! general system, of law covering mar
} riaCe and divorce has been subject
of European ridicule and contempt. Ir
countries where the vital statistics OF
births, marriages. and deaths have been
for ages matters of the most rigid pub
lie scrutiny and control. it has been in
conceivable that, in a great Common
wealth like New York, for example, &
man might be born without official rec
ord of the fact, and be unable after
ward 10 prove his age or his parentage
land might marry without ceremony OF
even witnesses, leaving the contract o
marriage to be proved by cohabitatioI
and his own admission, or by tie oath
OF witnesses who might, and Otter
have. been perjured, after his death, il
cases where he may never have lai'
eyes on the widow claiming rights il
his estate.
All other civilized peoples in the worl'
have laughed over the ability of higl
society wife. after being divorced ol
The statutory ground in New York, an
forbidden to marry again during tn
life of the plaintiff, to cross the lin
into Connecticut and marry the core
spondent few hours later. The de
cision of the Supreme Court will put
stop to such outrages upon society, an
such contempt Of law and the judiciary
. It is a long step in the right direction
= but the ultimate OF reform, as remarke
p above, has not yet been reached. Will
} the moral elements OF American sc
= ciety are agitating an amendment
D / the Constitution to make poiygamoU
1 / relations felonious everywhere With
c the Jurisdiction of the United State
they ought 10 consider the propriety
! including provision for a constitt
y tional marriage system. TO the end thG
9 bigamy and Dakota fraudulent d
,-or.oce taa,, ~ Fr1ore