New-York tribune., 1906-04-17
RULING ON DIVORCE.
Cr ,TE RIGHTS INVOLTED.
N,g Principle Laid Dozen by United
States Supreme Court.

-.,i-eton April 1G.-In an opinion by Jus
NIT. the Supreme Court OF the United
.o-fav decided the case OF John w. Had
So t4arrie, Haddock a divorce proceeding
90 IN the courts of New York City. in
rs'' .ba woman The Haddocks were mar
7S;S and the husband charged that he
~ = unwilling participant I'm the ceremony
"a in his answer 70 the wonans complaint
=. ,oe- her Immediately after the marriage
~ mas performed and had since seen
-i, three times. In 1851 he secured a di
- Connecticut where he then lived. and
,osa ,-as married there 10 another woman.
w. York supreme Court held the second
| -,sea ceremony illegal, decreed the first wife
% .hs LEGAL wife and directed Haddock 10 pay
| onruitv Of $50 That finding was sus-
- IN, -o-6ay's decision. which held that Mrs.
| sso.l WAS without the jurisdiction of the
| -.o,s.,,- court Justice White in his opinion
| - soQ-n the general principle that a state in
| .ab only one party 10 a divorce proceeding
| 80 has no right 10 dissolve a marriage tie which
n cher states must respect justices Harlan.
,-.rsr and Brown united in a dissenting opin-
rich was delivered by Justice Brown.
= .o.l -ba position that the Connecticut d.
=. ,,rorae6ine was regular and is entitled TO
| = cadence in other states Justice Brown de-
| -; that the court had taken backward step.
| ,.,,i,e Holmes also Gissented. but delivered an
-,,-sn5ert opiuion. He said the result Of the
-, yroul5 be 10 make many children illegit-
-.,e hut added that he would not go so far as
: ,-s5ict that civilization would come 20 an
- whatever the conclusion in the case
s.s,,rg the federal question to be that as TO
,bsrher the Constitution Of the United States
az been violated by the New York court in fall
=. ~ rive due faith and credit 10 the decree
!. ,bs Connecticut court, granting a divorce TO
z,5sock Justice White proceeded at great
s,q-b 10 show that such had not been the case.
20 reduced the case 10 the one question:
v-bstber the Connecticut court in virtue alone
n .be doricile OF the husband in that state had
Jurisdiction 10 render a decree against the wife
,rSer The circumstances stated which was en-
filed 10 be enforced In other states IN ana Dy
,irtue Of the full faith and credit clause OF the
Constitution. In other words, the fnal question
< whether 70 enforce in another jurisdiction the
Connecticut decree would not be TO enforce in
ne state personal judgment rendered in
yher state against a defendant over whom the
,ourt Of the state rendering the judgment had
moi acquired jurisdiction. Otherwise stated the
question is this. is a proceeding for divorce Of
such exceptional character as not TO come with
! the rule limiting the authority OF a state 10
gFs0ns within fits Jurisdiction. but on the con-
-ary, because az the power which government
nay exercise over the marriage relation con-
Etules az exception 10 that rule.
He then laid down the proposition that where
he full faith and credit clause is invoked TO
Hmpel the enforcement in one state OF decree
sndered in another the question Of the jurisdic-
bon Of the court by which the decree was rem
Tered is open 10 inquiry" adding that II there
vas no jurisdiction either Of the subject matter
d Of the person Of the defendant. the courts Of
another state are not required 20 enforce such
secree
Taking up the case on its merits, Justice White
lustrated the effect Of the success Of the con-
isnhon in behalf Of Mr Haddock by saying:
kthe fact be that where persons are married
The state Of New York either of the parties
NE marriage may in violation OF the marital
.olsatlons, desert the other and go into the
sate OF Connecticut there acquiring a domicile
iH1 procure q dissolution Of the marriage which
aolid re binding IN the State Of New York as
= lle party 10 The marriage there domiciled il
soulo follow that the power Of the State Of New
ieTk as 10 the dissolution Of the marriage as 10
rs lohlcNed CluZen would be Of no practical
sle'- And, conversely, the like result would
g-'N u me marriage had been celebrated in
-ohhrsucU' and GeSertion had been from that
aale 10 New York. and consequently the decree
saa saa been rendered in New York Even a super
-0.a. analyst VIII make this clear. Under the
- - t'iil-har- Tor II would follow that the
f4'es whose laws We're the most lax as 10
t-sA OF residence required for domici}e as n
-a@ ioi eNoroe and 10 speed OF procedure
i.s---ls olhorce would II effect dominate all
.-e states ln other words any person who
L.. .,@iil Tea I'D one state and who wished TO yio-
~, '-e marital obligations would be able by
.t'"ls me lines Of least resistance to go into
b-1e 80 Were laws We're the most lax and
- aHaL ~ them for the severance Of the mar
esV lie ana The destruction Of the rights oF the
s. AaiIs ln the marriage contract TO the over
-" ' me laws and public policy Of the ~ her
- Ihrs The argument comes Decessa rilI,
20 Tha Low -Tr-H
"a I SlaleS over marriage il is essential 10 de-
.. [ uaj All the states have such authority only
'-s SlIleranre Of the other states
justice Nhite made a complete ANALYSIS a,
7's'ons I1 Interstate divorces as rendered in
'eil'4s states. declaring that they refute tho
-,e''l'h that The preponderance IF such cases
favorable to The contention that the states
-1i ialih and credit 10 the divorce DEGREES
oheT states He added
e -He analysis and classification We bava r,.7a
te eone.u~iy-Iy 90 demonstrate rbaI ~ It
| rs, .'sHiu"n which is given in most Of The
- ~ @-oh eN-parte DEGREES Of divorce ron
rs i, ',-i'i states Is wholly Inconsistent ,vith
M, ~ l-al such limited recognition is based
s., N'e 'irHaHon II the fun faith and cr.dit
s,S ~ 'af Constitution If the United Statas
e-,.. Ile 'HniraTy, Is consistent only with The
v--'luon that such limited recoqniTi,y, -, a.
- lS based upon state comfy No cla.rdS -
49, si'-siIaiIHn can Doe made OF the accurac,I' of
~, laitt-eni man the obvious consaouspca
49, ne fli faifh and credit clause Uera ,1o,,,
ss., "r'H applicable 10 the enforcement in rba
e,s-.c.5 5sil'.'..-E ~ DEGREES Of divorce of the
Low VII ~. 'I me one here involved II would fol-
d 90 80 the IA" ~ nearly all y the states wouId
~, 'eFlhro"n. and thus il would cor1a ., ~ ~
rb'isft "', .>lous which were relied on as es-
IleS IlS''iis mat ihe faith and credit clause an
he s6r.s5ol" sol" Heere@s would be overruled by
sisted ~ -..I - Jhe proposition which it is in
Il is ,lI,f-. 'Ni.'iS MAINTAIN. Thus
fe5pres t-.s'e s'e aspect the proposition relied on
4 NJ. 81 To ms; either that the settled law
F-, 'i lne states II the Union as Ia dt-
rlB-- frees rendered in one state where the
= ito Jurisdiction only II the plainti0f must
t-t-112zzzzzzEE-z2 zEE-z21zxsexzxrExzax&