Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1905-11-23
PROF. HOWARD ON DIVORCE
State University Authority Discusses
| Ahuaea and POaHibIe Remedy.

state University Authority Discusses
Abuses and Possible Remedy.
Professor Howard prefsced his paper
with the statement that it was his purpose
to consider whether for the states and ter
ritories a uniform law of divorce Is de-
sirable and practicable, and If so. how best
it may be secured. He said, in part:
The appearance In 1859 of the govern
ment report, compiled, under the direction
of Hon. Carroll ID. Wright, disclosed some
thing like the rear facts regarding divorce
in the UqitedrStates The facts reveaied
Country 6Gfia ts tinsc aas, nc 'Y petitions
for full or partial, divorce were granted,
to ii SIS in is7i i4sO6 in 1875, %, 7s2 in 1851,
and to 25,535 in 1885; thus, comparing the
last year with the first, showing an Increase
but 60 per cent during the same tao de-
eades. Again, TO express the result in
terms Of the divorce "a, ratein 1861 II Is eS o
married couples. while in 1886 the number
had risen TO $50. AS matter OF fact, in
rate in the United States was higher than
for any country collecting statistics, except
Japan In that country. according TO Prof.
| Wilcox, there was more than one di-
vorce TO every three marriages, ind more
| than four and one half times as many
divorces as there were in the United states,
although the population of Japan was only
/ about two-thirds as great"
The report shows that the evil Of migra-
popular opinion At present the relative
number of such Clandestne divorces Is
doubtless much less than in 1886, for in
| many vital points the laws of the states
| then chiefly responsible for the evil have
become more stringent. Both the statutes
ana the courts are distinctly discouraglng
! 70 the divorce colony" even In South
4 Dakota.
| In Europe the 81, divorce rate is rising
| while the marriage rate is falling The
same is doubtless true Of the United States.
Judging from the scanty material avail
able There has been a great deal of mis-
directed and hasty criticism of American
| divorce legislation. Little by little, as a
detailed examination of the whole body
| of enactments reveals, more stringent pro-
/ vision for notice to the defendant have
| been made, longer terms of previous resi-
I dence for the plaintiff required, and more
the decree prescribed while the more
dangerous omnibus clauses I'm the lists
OF statutory causes have been "epealed
FRANKLY admitting the urgent need of re-
! form, the fact remains, as conceded bv
| the foreign observer. like Tocqueville and
! even Bryce. that family life in America
! Is purer than anywhere else I'm the world
| The real trend OF evolution has not nj
| al times been clearly seen or frankly adj
/ ever concealed in Theological garb or forcc1
! under theological sanctions, however on
| posed by reactionary dogma. public opinion
! the right Of the temporal lawmaker in this
held As a resut; in the United States.
/ not less clearly than elsewhere IN conn
! tries OF western civilization, marriage.
divorce and all the institutions OF IT,
| FAMILY are emerging as purely social insti-
human needs. Dehnitiveiv the state seems
70 have gained control of matrimonial ad-
! mtnistration.
solution OF the Problem.
I Apparently, il there is to be salvation.
! II must come through the WALKING regen-
! erative power Of . more efficient moral,
! The fundamental causes of divorce lie fat
! beyond the reach Of the statute-makcr
/ They are rooted deeply in the imperfec.
! system, particularly In false sentiments
( regarding marriage and the family. Beyond
marriage laws ana bad marriages. The
conviction Is deepening that for the wise
reformer., who would elevate and protect
marriage and not divorce.
At present there Is no public sentiment
embracing the entire body Of matrimonial
| and divorce law, Ideally such code Is
desirable, II Il might be gained without
IL would conduce in many. ways 10 social
I order; but the question seems now en-
tirely beyond the sphere o. practical dis
Accordingly Il seems best 20 confine the
movement to an effort 10 procure the
adoption OF a model statute, designed 10
prevent clandestine coliusive, or hasty d-
| Vorce. In other words, II should be re-
OF procuring the enactment OF federal
law under constitutional amendment
much favored fifteen or twenty years ago
has been abandoned by practical workers.
II h. doubtful whether such a law Is de-
srable, even II Il could be secured. In
stead. as will have been inferred from the
foregoing discussion. Il Is preferred,
through the state commissions on Uniform
legislation. TO urge the adoption Of model
statute by the separate commemorative.
Is IL not probable that special couyen-
tons Of delegates from groups OF neigh,
boring states or from all the states could
win good results? Indeed, at the instance
OF Pennsylvania. such convention 10 q
meet i'm Washington next February %
draft q model law FOR submission 70 the
state legislatures In August seventeen
governors had responded 10 the cAll OF
! PENNSYLVANIA in each case designating "a
the states delegation the three existing