New-York tribune., 1906-12-24
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Law CHANGES PROPOSED.
Federal DiU0rce Act Recommended
for 4U Interstate Cases.

To the Editor OF The Tribune
Sir: Allow tO the character OF a
would-be pathfndes and suggest certain modifca-
tons I'm laws both federal and state. First as
20 the varying divorce laws Of the different states
and the cry for federal divorce law.
Let there he n federal divorce law not in the
place Of but running alongside OF, the state laws.
Let this law be confined 70 where the
parties reside have their domicile in different
states. or where the suit is between citizen OF
the United States and citizen Of a foreign state.
or where the parties citizens Of foreign states
abiding in this country. Let this law further pro
vide that in such cases the action may he brought
in federal court and tried under the federal di-
vorce law. and under any local law Let it
further provide that no state court shall have
jurisdiction in such action unless upon service
Of process upon the nonresident party personally
and the voluntary submission 10 such jurisdiction
by the nonresident party. such facts 20 appear
af1irmattvely upon the record and in the decree
Also, for the compulsory removal of such cases
from from state to a federal court BY the plaintiff.
without requiring the defendant 20 furnish bond or
Second. TO appeals and issues Of original turis
supreme Court and our Court of Appeals, for
Il is matter Of the gravest concern. and where
IN l4TkS peril that the most important issues may
re nna!y determined by ma atorlty Of one justice.
have particularly in mind the income tax case
Gated by the United States supreme Court
~ sometimes happens in such cases that the
and that Judgment Of national importance is de
ternined on occasions ny the casting vote of one
justice in bench of nine
II seems 10 that the laws and practice as 70
appeals 10 and issues of original jurisdiction In
the courts of last resort both federal and In our
state, at least, should be amended to provide
that where a decision is arrived al by majority
cision Is rend cred shall have the right, as OF
course, to a rearsument- 1t may even be
found eXpedlent to extend such rule to d less
divided bench; and in al cases of great import so
resulting the first hearing the court of its own
motion or the motion of the dissenting justices,
z n he a. 2
the second decision he also upon tho majority Of
one justice It shall stand final
This would result in a further review Of Such
cases In the light Of the briefs and arguments OF
counsel submitted and of the opinions of the jus
tees handed down the first argument II
would also result in SOLDERING judgment by incurred
responsibity
The writer does not pretend 10 have studied
these questions as their Importance deserves not
having had the opportunity, and perhaps not the
ability, but II strikes him. nevertheless. and he
ventures with hesitation tentatively submit that
the ends sought in the first proposition might he
attained within the limits of the federal c0nstitu-
tion and would not infringe upon violate any
OF the lawful rights of the several states.
1t would seem involve somewhat the same
principles of law under which the Interstate Com
nerCe. the Supervisory Interstate Corporation, the
Pure Food and other laws of similar nature were
enacted.
The federal courts have now jurisdiction of ac-
uons between citizens Of different states, and II
fendRnt has now the right 10 remove It TO fed
eral court As to the second proposition, that IN
wolves only a regulation of practice. A y NJ.
Mount Vernon, y. Y, Dec. 10 1906.