The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-17

of New Jersey decreed that the judg-
ment entered in the court of North Da-
kota was wholly void and of no eff
feet"
This decision * now upheld by the
Supreme Court. in rendering the opin-
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 and punish
ment or the infection of pers Pnal pains
and penalties in contumacium.' A
court TO have jurisdiction of a case in
volving the relations and rights of the
parties to the suit must have actual
Jurisdiction over both plaintiff and de-
PENDANT Thus, the court held that
while the defendant Streitwolf did have
a legal residence in North Dakota when
the divorce was granted. he did not
have a matrimonial residence there. To
be binding. the proceedings must have
included evidence that the wife against
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 a
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,
granting the divorce.
The difference between legal and
illegal divorces is thus clearly set forth
by the Supreme Court, and hereafter
persons DESTROYS 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
protect an offender against prosecution
outside of the State granting the di-
Norce.
1t 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
riaEe and divorce has been a subject
of European ridicule and contempt. In
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, a
man might be born without official rec
ord of the fact, and be unable after
ward TO prove his age or his parentage;
and might marry without ceremony or
even witnesses, leaving the contract of
and his own admission, or by the oaths
OF witnesses who might, and often
have, been perjured, after his death. in
cases where he may never have laid
eyes on the widow" claiming rights in
his estate
All other civilized peoples in the world
have laughed over the ability of high
society wife. after being divorced on
the statutory ground in New York and
forbidden to marry again during the
life Of the plaintiff, to cross the line
into Connecticut and marry the CORE
spondent a few hours later The de-
cision of the Supreme Court will put
stop to such outrages upon society, and
such contempt of law and the judiciary.
1t is a long step in the right direction;
but the ultimate OF reform, as remarked
above, has not yet been reached. While
the moral elements OF American So
ciety are agitating an amendment to
the Constitution to make polygamous
relations felonious everywhere within
the Jurisdiction of the United States
they ought TO consider the prOpriety of
including a provision for constitu-
tional marriage system. to the end that
bigamy and Dakota fraudulent di-
voIces may be no more.