The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-04-27
The Supreme Court on Divorce.

The Supreme Court on Divorce.
An interesting decision has just been
rendered by the Supreme Court Of the
United States which gravely affects in
it's scope and operation the status of all
divorced persons In the United States
who have obtained DEGREES Of divorce
without first obtaining personal service
within the proper jurisdiction, or with
out the voluntary appearance Of the de-
PENDANT. This decision will be Of imme-
diate practical importance for the guild
ance of the scores of individuals who are
contemplating the early dissolution of
the marriage bond in some favored State
where there is what Mr.. Justice WHITE
terms the line Of feast resistance
This decision has been rendered by a
majority OF one in a court Of nine Judges,
but it is just as binding as though the
nine Judges had agreed.
Some lawyers have already hazarded
the opinion that this new decision does
not conflict with a former decision, and
that it makes no change in what has
been regarded heretofore as the most
recent law. This view is hasty and erro-
neous, and we shall indicate the bearing
and scope Of the Haddock case.
1t may be said in passing that an
examination of the various opinions rem
| dered shows that the majority of the
court imagine that they have not re-
versed themselves, while the four dis
senting Justices are plainly Of the opin-
ion that the court has receded from the
former decision.
The gravity of the situation is best
understood from the alarmed express
sions in the dissenting opinions.
Mr.. Justice HOLMES of Massachusetts,
who writes one of the dissenting opinions,
evidently thinks that the clock Of time
has gone back a century. His alarm is
expressed in these words:
" ! do not suppose that civilization will come 10
an end whichever way this case is decided. But
as the reasoning which prevails In the mind Of the
majority does not convince me, and as ! think that
the decision not only reverses a previous well con-
sdered decision Of this court but is likely to cause
considerable disaster 10 innocent persons and TO
| bastsrdize children hitherto supposed to be the
offspring of lawful marriage, I think It proper to
express my views"
The learned Justice then proceeds,
with that delicious abandon which COCA
sionally is found in minority opinions
of the Supreme Court Of the United
States, to demolish the theories Of the
prevailing opinion, and concludes with
the assertion that it is enough to read
ATHERToN Us. ATHERToN to see that it's
versed, and it's necessary consequences
denied"
The other minority judges were Mr..
Justice HARLAN, Mr.. Justice BREWER
and Mr.. Justice BROWN, who writes the
other dissenting opinion. He thus ak
presses his disappointment:
"I regret that the court In this case has taken
what seems to me a step ackward In American
Jurisprudence, and has virtually returned 10 the
old doctrine OF comfy. which Il was the very object
OF the full faith and credit clause OF the Constitu.
ton to superscde."
The majority opinion is written by
Mr.. Justice WHITE of Louisiana, and
| the concurring judges are Chief Justice
| FULLER OF Ohio, Mr.. Justice PEcKHAM
| of New York, Mr.. Justice MCKENNA of
California and Mr.. Justice DAY of Ohio.
The opinion is exhaustive, embracing
an examination Of all the important
decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States and of the courts Of last
resort in the various States, and it illus
trates that marked ability which char
acterizes Mr.. Justice WHITE.
The question before the court, stated
in the simplest terms, was this; lis a
divorce obtained in n State, without
personal service within the State upon
the defendant, or the voluntary appear
ance in the action Of such defendant, O
good divorce beyond the limits of the
State where the divorce has been granted,
or has it no extra-territorial force?"
The Supreme Court of the United
States has now'sustained the judgment
of the New York Court Of Appeals in the
case of HApDoCK ps. HADDocK, decided
by the Court Of Appeals on March Is,
1904, when the judgment of the Appel
late Division Of this department was
affirmed, with no opinion, II we turn to
the Appellate Division Reports we find
that the judgment Of the lower court
was affirmed, with M opinion.
On June 4, 1868, JOHN W. HADDocK
and HARRIET HADDocK were married;
they separated the same day without
the marriage being contaminated, and