The Cairo bulletin., 1906-04-18
DECIDE THOUSANDS
OF DIVORCES
INVALID
SUPREME COURT OF UNITED
STATES HANDS DOWN A
SWEEPING DECISION.
MANY APE BIcAMiSTS
And Countless Chil4ren Are Illepiti
mate--Both Parties to Suit for
Divorce Must Be Resident
of ctsAe

Washington April II decision
wa@ handed 1onn IN TIC United States
supreme court today which, in is bear
ing upon divorce laws ana martial re-
lations. Is the most sweeping and inn
portant ever enuncated.
AS Justice Holmes saws in dissent
ins oninion. II win llegitiwi2e many
children and eat aside mapy oElsting
conditions. In it. scope and import
anco too much WEIGHT cannot he At
tach 81 70 the decision.
THE aeci ion IS briefly this No.
state can dissolve marr'apo un'e'
both parties to the divorce suit are
residents of the state, and any mar
rage subsequent 10 divorce granted
upon an application of this kind is
ineral
Th'e irvaNAates -ho divorces of IN
c1vtN Talc ct7 tv0o md wNFce }nAr
'tI'-ff fNf'tF tiIta tt.' 'a' ''tt
d vorce Illegal.
Decision is Swsepinu.
In it, ramifcations and widespread
interest II Is the mosr important de-
cision ever rendered by the United
States supreme court upon this sub.
sject.
1t is interest ne to note that this is |
the second divorce case that has ever
cons usfo..e the United States sn-
preme court This court in the past
has rather held to the opinion that
divorces were state matters and not
within the purview of the United
States supreme court The first case
was rather unimportant and found its
way there simply due to the fact that |
il was an insular case and a question
of property was involved.
So fa~ as the parties 10 the divorce
case IN this mater aar concerned there
f. no g~oat rrhic interest. hut the
ruling of is Of he utmoei imNnrtance
TIE opinion IN The case was written
hy Justice white
Iie Marrisue tlieral.
1 Tho case Is that 0f John w, Ha'.
hocl apainst Harriet Haddock a II.
vorcp nrcreeding Instituted in the
cnrrte Of Now York The decision i
ir favor If tNo woman The Hed1o"ks
wc., n,a~r'er ~ 1893 and the hueband
claimed - havc hcen IN unwilling
W -4-rf-a~t = mo cc~o--cnv ~ envo
n ,ie 7never ~ the woman's com
rf-'u+ tN-- IL 'oft ~ 'u'un 'i7t-'f
after The marriage ritor wa~o upr
formed arI drr'ng all The time that
has i1terv9ned has seen her only
three tirres.
IN 1899 h. sccural q divorce W the
-t9+a g Ton-ectfru+ rvhe-a ~ then
r7s'ded. and IN 1882 was married there
tc another woman The New York
srrrorla court held the second mar
rage ceremony 10 be illegal decread !
the first wife - be still the legal wife
and directed Haldock TO nav her an
annuity of of $3.50 That finding wa.
sustained hv today decision. which q
held that Mrs Haddock was without y
the jurisdiction of the Connecticut
court.
Four Justices Dissent.
Justice White in deciding the case
laid down thu general princiDie that
state in which only one party TO di-
vo~ce proceeding resides has no right i
to dissolve a marriage tie which all v
otner states must resp ectJusticcs Har- b
Ian. Brewer and Brown united in DIS G
senting opinion. which was delivered
by Justice Brown. They took the posi-
ton that the Connecticut divorce pro
ceeding was regular and is entitled
TO due credence in other states. I
Justice Brown declared in his opn. =
ion that the court had taken a back h
ward step IN this decision. II
Justice Holm IS also dissented from ]
tn decision of the court. but deliv-
cred an independent opinion. He said
fhc result of tn decision would be
10 illegitimatize many children. bui
added that he would not go so far a. :,
to predict that civilization would come :
to an end whatever the conclusion in :
h. case