Arizona republican., 1906-05-29
PHoENIx. ARIZONA. MAY 2s, 1906.
THE LATE DIVORCE DECISION.

The full text of the opinion of the United States supreme court in the di- vorce matter of Haddock vs. Paddock is interesting the attorneys of the country. It has been very recently published in it's entirety af thirty pages including the ten pages of dissenting opinion. It is generally agreed that so far as the subject of divorce is con- cerned it is much less sweeping than it was supposed to be from the earlier and somewhat sensational reports which have been sent out, that it prac- tically invalidated all divorces which had ever been granted where the de fendant was without the jurisdiction of the court and where service had been obtained only by publication.
 The opinion, however, does nothing of the sort It merely affirms a court or New York which declined to give full faith and credit to a divorce which had been granted in Connecticut the defendant being a resident of New York and who had been served by pub lication. It was held by the New York court that the Connecticut court had not jurisdiction over the person of the wife and moreover on the ground that desertion by her had been falsely charged in the petition of the husband.
 The question raised was whether or not the New vo~k court had violated the full faith and credit" clause of the constitution.
  court finds that it did not, there is rothing in the opinion of the court af- fecting the force of decrees similar to the Connecticut decree in those states in which they would be accepted. It is after all only a matter of comity.
 The most significant thing in the opinion is it's recognition of an action for divorce as personal action rather than spit for the establishment of the status Of the persons involved, an ac- ton in rem, as the lawyers say.
 The policy of the state of New York on the subject of divorce is rather rigid. There only one ground for divorce is recognized and in that state this op1n- ion is calculated to make a great deal of trouble for it's wealthy and other citizens who journey to South Dakota. where matrimonial ties are rendered soluble.
 The question brought before the su- preme court could not well arise in states where divorce laws are liberal There comity would figure.
 An interesting matter presents itself. Though an opinion of the United States supreme court is for the time at least the law of the land the courts of Con- necticut under the laws of that state would have to do in similar case pre- cise!y what they did in the Haddock case. No judge there could refuse to grant a decree of divorce on an order of publication since the laws of tna; state recognize that as proper service If he should refuse to proceed with the hearing in such a case he would no doubt be quickly compelled by an order from a higher court to proceed. But New York and other states with siml- lar laws need not under this decision recognize such decrees.
 The opinion does not question the validity of the decree within the terri torial limits of Connecticut. In fact it is admitted to be valid and Justice Holmes in dissenting says: "I am unable to reconcile with the require ments of the constitution, Att. ". Sec. 1 Ohe so-called full faith and credit clause) the notion of a judgment being valid and binding in the state where il is rendered and yet depending for rec Ognition to the same extent in other states of the Union upon the comity Of those states"
 Justice Brown in the dissenting opin- ion in stronger language says: The action of the court in this case Is a step backward in American jurisprudence and has virtually returned to the old doctrine of comity which it was the very object of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution to super sede."
 It may be predicted in view of the widely varying attitude of the court that the matter has not been finally again some time with a perhaps diff ferent result. Something more than the interests of those seeking to throw off the matrimonial yoke is involved.
 "
 The whirlwind of dust yesterday was merely a merciful foretaste of what we will get after the sprinkIing carts gol out of commission.