The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1906-06-01
FEDERAL DIVORCE DECISION.
Decision $4,000 Words Long in Had
dock Case Has Reached Hero
But Not Studied Yet.
The Columbia Record.

The recent decision Of the federal
supreme court in the Haddock Ill
vorce case, in which the broad doe
trine is laid down that the constitu-
tion Of the United States does not re-
quire the courts of one state to give
"full faith and credit" to the de-
crees of another state, where juris-
diction of the subject matter or Of the
person is lacking, and that decree
OF divorce obtained where that con-
dition exists cannot be enforced in
another state, affects a number Of
South Carolinians living in this state
or removed to other states, who have
gotten released 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
Carolina situation is affected is not
quite clear yet to even the best in
formed lawyers. The decision is quite
lengthy. Advance proofs of the print
ed 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 Genel al
Youmans has been requested to rem
der an opinion on the matter, but. it
will likely be several weeks yet be-
fore 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.
Facts Of Case Appealed.
Some understanding Of the points
covered by the decision may be had,
however, from recital of the facts
of the case in which it was rendered.
They are simple: John Haddock,
who married his wife in New York,
subsequently left her and removed to
Connecticut, where he secured di-
vorce and contracted q second mar
riage. The first wife, however, re-
mained 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 that 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. Haddock was not within that
jurisdiction of the Connecticut court
the courts Of the sister state were not
bound to give credit to the Connecti-
cut decree.
Justice Brown, in a dissenting opin-
ion on behalf of himself and Justices
Harlan and Brewer, characterizes the
majority opinion as ga step back
ward in American jurisprudence"
and Mr.. Justice Holmes, in an 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 T think that the decision not
only reverses previous well-consid-
cred decision Of this court, but is like
ly to cause considerable disaster to
innocent persons and to bastardize
children hitherto supposed to be the
offsprings Of legal marriage, think
it proper to express my views" "
Not Void But Voidable.
- Others have taken the view that
the decision does not make these mar
riages "null and void" but merely
voidable, that it does not put beyond
the pale Of legitimancy.at one full
swoop children of another union Of
couples, one or both Of whom may
have secured "an ex parte decree"
It is not likely that t'many victims"
Of one-sided'' divorces will avail
themselves Of the opportunity for
ttlelief' or "revenge" the decision
puts in reach.
No I.ooseness Favored Here. 3l#&
Itsis likely that this state as a.,,,
whole still prides itself on its unique