Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-04-17
DIVORCES ARE VOID
Sweeping Decision in the United
States Supreme Court on
the Subject
THOUSANDS ARE AFFECTED
Estimated That Twenty Thousand
Children Are Stamped as IIeeitimate
by the misunderstanding Opinion
Says Court Has Taken Backward
Step in Jurisprudence.

Washington, April 17-In an opin-
ion by Justice White the supreme court
Of the United States yesterday decided
the case of John w. Haddock vs. Har-
Siet Haddock, a divorce proceeding in
stituted in the courts of New York
In favor of the woman. The Haddocks
were married in 1868, and the husband
claimed to have been an unwilling par
ticipant in the ceremony. He says in
his answer to the womans complaint
that he left her Immediately after the
marriage rites were performed and
during the time that has elapsed he
has seen her only three times.
In 1882 he secured a divorce in Con-
necticut, where he resided and in 1882
was there married to another woman.
The New York supreme court held
the second marriage to be illegal, de-
creed the first wife to be still the legal
wife and directed Haddock to pay an
alimony of $3.50. That decision was
held, that Mrs. Haddock was without
the jurisdiction of the Connecticut
court.
Justice White, in deciding the case,
laid down the general principle that
q state in which only one Larty to
divorce proceeding resides has no right
to dissolve marriage tie which all
other states must respect.
Justices Harlan, Brewer and Brown
united in a dissenting opinion which
was delivered by Justice Brown. They
thot CONNECTICUT
divorce proceeding was regular and is
entitled to due credence In other states
Justice Brown declared in his opin-
ion that the court had taken pack
ward step in this decision.
Justice Holmes also dissented from
the opinion of the court but deilVereo
an Independent opinion. He SAID Tue
result Of the decision was to lllesi'iiila-
tie many children, but added that ne
would not go so far as to predlct una.
civilization would come to an emu
y whatever the conclusion In the case
Settle Iowa Boundary Line.
r,or the first time in twenty-nlne
wears the supreme court OF the ohlteu :.
states Yesterday called it's docket OF
oripinal cases with the end in view OF
eliminating some of them If posslnle.
m the case of Iowa VS.. Illinois, a
hnnndary controversy, Representative
Lacey, of Iowa, announced that sup,
ul;ltion looking to a settlement hau
heen signed by the attorney generals
of the two states.
sThe Missouri Nebraska case was
4 practically settled by an announcement
by. the chief justice that the court
w,,uld issue an order for taking 1T Off
the docket. The report of the COM
missioners. made in conformity with
the order of the court, was filed by
Representative Hinshaw, OF Nebraska.
n the Colorado Kansas Irrigation
case the government was granted until
Se.ptember to file its brief and 1t was
announced that the case had peen SET
for argument next october; in the case
of the United States VS.. Michigan, IN
yf,lying the Sault Ste. Marie canal,
prospect for settlement was announced
and the case was continued; In WASH
ington VS.. Oregon, boundary ques-
ton. stipulation to close the taking
OF testimony by the first Monday IN
August was announced. The cases or
South Dakota VS. the Northern Securl-
ties Company, involving the merger OF
fl1ei Great Northern and the Northern
Raciac railroads, were dismissed.
Court Will Adjourn May 20.
Chief Justice Fuller yesterday an
,nounced in the supreme court of the
United States that the court would
adjourn for the term on May 49, In
the meantime the call of the docket will
be suspended for the term on the 9th
inst. and a recess of two weeks will be
taken on the Goth inst.