The daily morning journal and courier., 1906-04-17
DIVORCE OBTAINED IN
 CONNECTICUT ILLEGAL
IMPORTANT DECISION OF U s. SUPREME COURT IN 4 FA-
 NOUS CASE.

Marriage of John w. Haddock in This
 State After He Had Divorced His
 Wife Who Resided in New York De-
 clared VOid--Justice White Main
 tains That a State in Which Only One
 Party to Divorce Proceeding He-
 sides Has No Right to Dissolve a
 Marriage Tie Which All States Must
 Respect-Dissenting OpiniOns-COn-
 tention That Ruling VIII Make Many
 Children IIIegitimate.
 Washington, April 16,--In an opinion by Justice White, the supreme court of the United States, to-day decided the case of John W. Paddock vs. Harriet Paddock, a divorce proceeding institut- ed in the courts of New York city, in favor of the woman.
 The Haddocks were married in 1868 and the husband claimed to have been an unwilling participant in the cere- mony. He says in his answer to the womans complaint that he left her im- mediately after the marriage rites were performed and during all the time that had iftervened has seen her only three times. In 1881 he secured a divorce in connecticut, where he then resided, and in 1882 was married there to another woman. The New York supreme court held the second marriage ceremony to be illegal, decreed the first wife to be still the legal wife, and directed Had dock to pay her an annuity of $7SO The finding was sustained by to-days de- cision, which held that Mrs. Haddock was without the jurisdiction of the Con- necticut court
 Justice White in deciding the case, laid down the general principle that a state in which only one party to a di- vorce proceeding resides has no right to dissolve a marriage tie which all other states must respect Justices Harlan, Brewer and Brown united in dissent ing opinion, which was delivered by Justice Brown. They took the position that the Connecticut divorce proceed ings was regular and is entitled to due credence in other states,
 Justice Brown declared in his opinion that the court had taken a backward step In this decision
 Justice Holmes also dissented from the decision of the court, but delivered an independent opinion. He said the result of the decision would be to file gitimatize many children, but added that he would not go so far as to pre- dict that civilization would come to an end whatever the conclusion in the case.
 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 di- vorce to Paddock, Justice White pro- ceeded at great length to show that such had not been the case. As the re- suit of his process of reasoning he re- duced the case to the one question:
 Whether the Connecticut court in virtue alone of the domicie of the hus- band in that state, had jurisdiction to render a decree against the wife under the circumstances stated which was entitled to be enforced in other states in and by virtue of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. In other words, the final question is whether to enforce in another 1urisdic- tion the Connecticut decree would not Ictn.4l.,nI s.n cti..At 1n.----- \ -------