The citizen. (Frederick City, Md.) 1895-1923, 1906-04-20
SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES MAKES
IMPORTANT RULING IN
DIVORCE CASE.

Nlldt VIII nave Il luN-i lat reaching I'll
fec on The divorce laws OF the various
Safes Of the Uniou and make it eX-
trelely difficult for person, 10 lie lie.
gllly separated from their ia ended
life partners in the future. besides cast
ing leg Il suspicion upon the offspring
OF marriag that base taken place in
the past az er Ich dvorc4 a. the de-
cision PROHIBITS. tn. dictim that a
divorce grautel 10y State which has
jurisdiction over only one Iarty 10 the
sui, a Il resident of that STATE j. OF a
valid divorce Is held by eminent New
York lawyers to be in accord with The
well established rule in New 30 K
State and not in conflict with prior
ruiiags Of the highest courts in the
land.
Toe court was divided. four again.t
ami five coucurripg in the opinion
The minority filed dissenting upin-
ion which gives the personal side If
;he matter, takes il The question Of
b'gamy and the stata, of children
born OF subsequent marriages.
Il agreed among laA1erS that the
jecj>I 90 would aud ubt-dly tend to
cJrtail "hurry-up" marriages in the
Western states and ten To bring the
States toge,hel % frame divorce laws
which shall wmk evenly 1t j. point
yd out that the desired t q may be
reac ed iu two ways-by Coustitu-
tioual Amendment which would have
To be rauti d by three-quarter~ OF All
the States, empower ~ Cong e,s to
pass divorce laws, or 10y a co ,v.ntion
OF the states To devise ways and means
for adopting uniform div.rc. laws.
The latter method j. favor i
The Baltimore >n4 sum, up the s!lu-
alton M the following editorials:
"The decision Of the Supreme Court
of the United States i Iue Hadd lck
divorce case T. of great imlortauce 1t
has long been common wler- man
waists TO change h,- wife or woman
wust> NV husband for the person 80
disposed To 60 TO DAKOTA, reside there
few months in order TO acquire stat
ut0ry citizenship aud then apply for
divorce, which has seldom been r.
fused. The Constitution Of the United
states pre>crbes that full faith and
credit in every other State snall ue
given to thu public act,, records and
judicial proceedings Of each State
Ii was upon this clause in the Consti-
tuition that tie Htdduck case Went 10
the Suplem- Coart The couple were
married in Ne" York in 1S9S. where
the wife continued 10 reSd-. The
husband became citizen of Connect
icIt. aud in ISL procure divorce
from his wife, and the next Year mar
rtd again. The supreme Conrt If
New York decided that the divorce.
and cons queuty the second ma age,
invalid, aud 1t was that decree which
was affirmed ~ he Federal Supreme
Court i'll Mondays decision. The
court, ~ J. quite common with that
august jrloILa., was a. nearly divided
n the old numter of Judges can be.
But the decision l. no le important
on that account. The rule LAID down
~ Judge White in delivering the
opinion of the court i that state a.
" hich one party TO thu marriage may
reside has Lp right To dissolve mar
liage by decree which I,e othe-
states are bound TO respect In other
W TdS thu State of New York, where
one OF The parties lived could not b.
deprived OF its jurisdiction by the
action Of q court in auo.her State.