The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1906-05-30
4 DIVORCE DECISION.
United States Supreme Court Holds
That One State is Not Bound to
Recognize Divorces Granted in
Another.

Another.
Columbia, May 2S.-The recent de-
c:sion of the Federal Supreme Court
in the Haddock divorce case, in which
the broad doctrine is laid down that
the constitution Of the United States
does not require the courts OF one
State TO give full faith and credit
to the decree Of another State, where
Jurisdiction Of the subject matter or
of the person is lacking, and that de-
cree Of divorce obtained where that
condition exists cannot be enforced
in another State, affects a number Of
South Carolinians living in this State
or removed to another State, who have
gotten release in North Carolina or
Georgia or elsewhere. from degrading
and intolerable bonds and some Of
whom have remarked and are living
happy and useful lives here or in 9TH
er States.
Just to what extent the South Car
DINA situation is affected is not quite
clear, yet to even the best Informed
lawyers. The decision is quite lengthy.
Advance proofs of the printed case
have just reached here, but as there
are about $4,000 words in the thing
nobody has had time to more than
skim over it. Attorney General You
mans has been requested to render a
decision in the premises, but it will
likely be several weeks yet before he
can get this out. He has not yet read
the decision and is not in position to
express himself even in an off hand
way.
Some understanding of the points
covered by the decision may be had,
however, from a recital Of the facts
of the case in which 1t was rendered.
They are simple: John Haddock,
who married his wife in New York,
subsequently left her and removed to
Connecticut where he secured a di-
vorce and contracted second mar
riage The first wife, however, re-
NAMED domiciled in New York and
entered suit against him for support,
with the result that the New York
courts refused to recognize the Con-
necticut divorce and held that Had
dock must support the plaintiff as his
only true and lawful wife. The hus-
| band appealed to the Supreme Court
under the provision of the Federal
constitution chat full faith and credit
shall be given in each State to the ju-
dicial proceedings Of every other
State, but that tribunal sustained the
New York judgment, holding that as
Mrs. Hac1ock was not within the ju-
risdiction of the Connecticut court the
courts of the sister State were not
bound to give credit TO the Connecti-
cut decree.
Justice Brown. in dissenting opin-
icn on behalf of himself and Justices
Harlan and Brewer. characterizes the
lraJorf{y opinion as ~ s:er back
uards in American Jurisprudence.
arr Mr.. Justice Holmes in e.: inde-
pendent opinion said:
..I do not suppose that civilization
Will come to an end whichever way
this case is decided; but as the rea-
soning which prevails in the mind of
the majority does not convince me,
and as I think that the decision not
only reverses a previous well-consid-
cred decision Of this court, but is
likely to cause considerable disaster to
innocent persons and to bastardize
children hitherto supposed to be the
offspring, of legal marriage, think IL
proper TO express my views"
Others have taken the view that the
decision does not make these mar
riages "null and void" but merely
avoidable, that it does not put beyond
the pale of legitimacy at one fell
swoop children of another union of
couples, one or both Of whom may
| have secured "an eX-parte decree" 1t
IS not likely that many victims OF
"one-sided" divroces will avail them
selves of the opportunity for "relief'
or revenge the decision puts in
reach.
1t is likely that this State as a whole
still prides itself on its unique posi-
ton of allowing no divorce for any
cause, and permitting perfect free
dom in marrying in most ill-advised
I instances. But the intelligent element
is by no means unit along this line,
and there is apparent a gradual ten
dency toward a restricted divorce law.
But for the relief obtainable in neigh