The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-04-17
BLOW At DAKOTA DIVORCES.
IMPORTANT DECISION BY THE
L. S. SUPREME COURT. :
II Holds That q Divorce. in Order TO He
beyond Legal Attack, Must BE Oh.
tanned in the State in Which Both
Parties ReSlde-Four justices Dissent.

WASHINGTON ApTl To- lHe CHl'eu cldteS
Supreme Court to-day, by a benchdivided five
IN four, held that divorces obtained in States
which do not have jurisdiction over both
narties to the marriage are not enforceable
outside the State granting the divorce,
under the clause Of the Constitution pro-
v,iing that each State shall give full faith
md credit to the DEGREES Of another State.
Tho effect of the decision, therefore, Is that
. divorce like those obtained in South Da-
kota bv the acquisition Of temporary resi-
done, for that purpose. is valid in the State
l., yhich the couple resided only so long as
he Legality is not attacked. 1t follows.
therefore. that a divorce In order to be be
vond attack must be obtained in the State
Of which both parties are residents.
The c7.p was tina. Of John w. and Harriet
ua iiocS. who were married in New York
ci.y on June Il, 1858, and lived together
three months. when Haddock deserted her
and went to Connecticut to live. In 1881 he
obtained, on the ground Of desertion. a
divorce in Litchfeld, Conn, service being
made on the wife by publication and the
mailing Of notice to her former residence in
Tarrytown. He afterwarl married. In
1909 Harriet Handbook brought suit in the
New York courts against her former hus-
band, and notice was served on him person.
sllv. 4 divorce was granted her on the
ground of desertion, with $3.50 O year ali
NOM. the court refusing to recognize the
Connecticut divorce. on the ground that the
notice was poor. The New York Supreme
Court affirmed that judgment and denied
the claim of Haddock that the New York
courts we're bound by the Connecticut de-
cree under the constitutional requirement
a. to giving full faith and credit to the de-
crees of the courts Of other States.
The case was brought to the Supreme
Court Of the United States mainly on that
question. The opinion to-day, delivered
by Justice White, after stating the various
points in the case VIII ich had been settled
hy previous decisions Of the court, says
that, the husband being then a bona fide
resident OF Connecticut, the courts OF that
State had power to give effect to the decree
Il granted; that as New York was the domi-
Gle Of the wife and Of matrimony, from
which the husband fed, her domioile con-
tinued Their e; and that az she was not con-
structively present in Connecticut and did
not appear in the divorce proceedings
the Connecticut court did not acquire juris-
diction over her.
The question. therefore, was whether,
under these circumstances, the decree
could be enforced in New York through
the Invocation Of the clause requiring full
faith and credit. 1t depended on the juris-
diction either Of the subject matter or OF
the person Of the defendant, without which
th' courts Of another State were not re-
CURED by virtue of the full faith and credit
clause OF the Constitution to enforce such
a decree.
The wide scope of the authority which
Government possesses over the contract OF
marriage and its dissolution, says Justice
White, lis the basis upon which it Is argued
that the domicile within one State OF one
party to the marriage gives to such a State
jurisdiction to decree a dissolution of the
marriage tie which will be obligatory in
all the other States by force Of the full
faith and credit clause Of the Constitution
But the deduction is destructive. of the
premise upon which it rests. This becomes
clear when it is perceived that if one Gov
eminent, because OF its authority over
its own citizens, has the right to dissolve
the marriage tie as to the citizens OF another
jurisdiction it must follow that no Govern
ment possesses as to its W citizens power
over the marriage and its dissolution.
For if it be that one Government. in virtue
Of its authority over marriage may dissolve
the tie as to citizens OF another Govern
ment other Governments would have q
III oht ~ NV - "
every Government az to its own citizens
might be rendered nugatory by the ex-
ercise of the power which every other
Government possessed.
This would result that those who wished
to violate the marital obligations would
60 to the State having the most lax laws
to obtain divorces, destroying the rights
10 the other party to the marriage con-
tract. to the overthrow of the laws and
public policy of the other States
Thu opinion quotes from sixty or seventy
controlling decisions OF the Safe courts ,
running back to the year 1900, as showing
hy an overwhelming preponderance that
The limited recognition given by most OF
The States to divorce DEGREES obtained
in States which had jurisdiction alone over
the plaintiff was wholly inconsistent with
the theory that such limited recognition
wss BASED upon the operation OF the full
faith and credit clause OF the Constitution
tut on the contrary was consistent only
with the conception that such limited
recognition as is given is based upon State
comfy,
NO clearer demonstration can be made
Of the accuracy of this statement" says
Justice White. than the obvious conse-
quence that if the full faith and credit
cslse were now to be held applicable to
the enforcement in the States generally
Of DEGREES of divorce of the character Of
the one here involved il would follow that
the law Of nearly all the States would be
overthrown, and thus it would come TO pass
that the decisions which were relied upon as
establishing that the due faith and credit
clsu use applies to such DEGREES would be
overruled by the adoption Of the PROPOSE
ton which it is insisted these decisions
maintain.
The only escape from this conclusion
would be to say that the law of the States,
as shown by the decisions in question,
would remain unaffected by the ruling OF
the full faith and credit clause because
not repugnant to that clause. This would
be, however, but to assert that the full
faith and credit clause required not that
full faith and credit be given in one State
10 the DEGREES Of another State, but that
only a limited and restricted enforcement
Of a decree in another State would fulfil
the requirements of that provision Of the
Constitution. To go decide would be to
destroy the true import Of the full faith
and credit clause. Thus, in it's ultimate
aspect the proposition relied upon reduces
Itself to this: Either that the settled law
Of most Of the States of the Union as to
divorce DEGREES rendered in one State.
where the court rendering the decree had
jurisdiction only Of the plaintiff, must be
feid to be invalid, or that an important
provision Of the Constitution must be shorn
Of It's rightful meaning.
Without questioning the power OF the
state Of Connecticut to enforce within its
own borders the decree OF divorce which Is
here in issue. and without intimatinR a doubt