Catoctin clarion. [volume] (Mechanicstown, Md.) 1871-1940, 1906-04-19
An Important Decisions.

The decision Of the Supreme Court OF the
is Of great importance 1t has long been
common where man wants to change his
wife or u woman wants new husband for
the person so disposed to so to Dakota, re
side there \ few months in order to acquire
statutory citizenship anil theu apply for di
yorce which has seldom been refused. The
Constitution IF the United States pr"scribes
that "full faith and credit in every other
State shall be gwen to the public acts, rec
ords and judicial proceedings of each State"
1t was upon this clause In the Consti tuition
that the Haddock case went to the Supreme
Court. The couple were marriel in New
York IN 1853, where the wife continued to
reside. The husband became q citizen Of
Connecticut, and ia 1881 procured divorce
Fl rom his wife, and the next year married
again. The Supreme Court of New York
decided the divorce, and consequently the
second marriage, invalid, aud it was that de-
cree which Wa. affirmed by the Federal Su
preme Court in Mondays decision. The
court, as is quite common with that august
tribunal. was as nearly divided rs an o1d
Of Judges eau be. But the decision ia no less
important on that account. The iulc laid
down by Judge White delivering the opinion
of the court is that State in which one par
tv to the marriage may reside has no right to
DISSOLVE marriage bya decree which the
other States are bound to respect. In other
words, the State of New York, where one Of
the parties lived, could not be deprived Of
its jurisdiction by the action OF court In
another State. where the other party lived.
Two or more States of the Union, according
10 solemn charges that have been made, de.
libcratey adjusted theI laws to make 1t easy
fer the citizens of other States to move ten
porarily into hotel in one of these States,
remain few months and then obtain d.
vorce against husband or wife residing in
some other State a thousand or more miles
away. 1t has been charged that these d.
vorce laws were deliberately enacted 10 pro.
mote the business of the hotels Amy kind
of trivial pretcnse for dissOlving the mar.
rlage was sufficient. and many thousands OF
husbands and wives have awaited themselves
of the laws of South Dakota for this purpose.
In 1908 it was held in England that these
divorces IRE invalid, and The same year one
of the cases came up in the Supreme Court
of the United States.
In that case one Andrews, of Massachu-
sets, had died and letters of administration
on his estate were demanded by two women
his first wife, who had been divorced by
Dakota decree, and the wife whom he had
married after the divorce. The Massachu
selts court decided that the divorce was in
valid and the first wife was entitled TO ad-
ministratioD. This decision was affirmed by
the Supreme Court III an opinion delivered
by Justice White. 1t was shown IN the rec
ord that Andrews had remained only SIX
months in South Dakota, had obtained the
decree of divorce and had then left. Justice
White declared in his opinion that Andrews
bad manfestly gone to Dakota for the pur-
pose of obtaining the divorce, and that this
temporary change did not constitute change
of citizenship. This present decision Is a
step far beyond that one Sun.