Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1906-04-19
A BLOW FOR
SIOUX FALLS
SUPREME COURT RENDERS pEcl.
SION AGAINST HAsTY pI-
voRcE DEGREES
FAMILIES In JEOPARDY
The Decision Makes 1t Possible For a
Decree Of Divorce to Be AnnuIled II
Not Obtained in State Where Mar
riase is Performed.

Washington, April 17.-Hasty di.
vorces obtained in states where laws
are lax has received staggering blow
by decision yesterday of the SUI.
preme court Of the United States that
the tribunals Of one state are not
obliged to accept the DEGREES granted
in the courts of another, and that
divorce granted in one state is not
binding on the other party concerned
if he or she lives in another
So broad Is the decision that hence.
forward man seeking divorce on
grounds not recognized in the state in
which he lives will hesitate long
time before betaking himself to South
Dakota, and, after nominal residence
Of six months, obtaining legal separa.
| ton, for If he marries again and re-
turns to the state in which he former
ly lived he Is liable to be arrested for
bigamy on complaint of his first wife
or compelled by the court. to which
she is at liberty to apply for redress,
to support her in fitting style, even Il
he has to neglect his newer wife to
do so.
Families In Jeopardy.
Not only does the decision apply to
the future, but 1t opens the way for
thousands of men and women to ap.
ply to the courts of their native states
| to have divorce DEGREES issued else.
where declared null and void, and
tens Of thousands of children. born Of
second marriages may be declared H.
legitimate in the states in which they
live. The decision, however, will
have this effect only where one of the
parties to the decree brings the mat
ter up in court and the probability is
that in the majority Of cases no such
action will be taken.
That this feature of the case was
carefully considered by the tribunal
was shown by the dissenting opinion Of
Justices Harlan, Brewer and Brown,
handed down by the latter. Justice
Holmes also dissented and handed
down a separate opinion, emphasizing
this feature more strongly
The case on which the courts de-
cision was based was that Of John w.
Haddock, against Harriet Haddock.
| The Haddocks were married in 1868,
and the husband claimed to have been
an unwilling participant to the cere-
mony. He left his wife Immediately
after the ceremony.
Gets Divorce Elsewhere.
In 1881 he secured divorce in the
state of Connecticut, where he then re-
sided and in the following year mar
ried another woman. The first Mrs.
Haddock instituted proceedings in the
New York courts, and the supreme
court of that state held the second
marriage ceremony to be illegal, de-
creed the first wife still to be the legal
wife and directed Haddock to pay her
an annuity of $3.50. That flndixg the
supreme court of the United States up
held yesterday.
i Justice White in deciding the case
laid down the general principle that a
state in which only one party to di-
yorce proceeding resides has no right
to dissolve marriage tie and expect
other states to respect the decree.
/ Constitution Not Violated.
Stating the federal question to be
that as to whether the constitution OF
the United States had been violated by
the New York court in failing to give
due faith and credit to the decree Of the
Connecticut court granting divorce
to Haddock, Justice White proceeded
at great length to show that such had
not been the case.
4 ENGINE AND CAR COLLIDE.