The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-04-18
The Supreme Court on Divorce,


The Dakota divorce industry has re-
ceived stunning blow from which it
cannot recover, in the decision handed
down by the supreme court on Monday.
1t is another of those five to four opin
ions in which the minority strenuously
dlssents from the court.
The parties to the action on which
the decision is based were married in
1868. In 1881 the husband obtained
divorce in Connecticut and married
again. Later the first wife instituted
proceedings in a New York court to
nave the second marriage declared lille
gal and herself still the true and law
ful wife. This the New York court
granted.
The federal question involved was
whether the constitution of the United
States had been violated in the fact
that fhlEfaith and credit to the judicial
proceedings of Connecticut had not been
accorded in New York. Justice White.
who gave the majority opinion, declared
the question to be whether to enforce in
another jurisdiction the Connecticut de-
| cree would not be to enforce in one
state personal judgment rendered in
another state against defendant over
Whom the court of the state rendering
the Judgment had not acquired .iuris-
dlctlon and added that if there was no
jurisdiction of the subject matter or of
Che defendant the, courts of another
state are not required to enforce such
decree.
Justice Brown in his dissenting opin-
ION said that in making this decision
the court was taking backward step
IN American jurisprudence and had viz
tually returned to the old doctrine of
comfy, which the full faith and credit
clause OF the constitution was expected
TO supersede. Comfy is less than fill
1alth and credit since it implies only
a polite respect, which may be given
or withheld, for the DEGREES Of the
courts OF one state in those of another,
Iherels nothing in the decision which
prevents the state courts from extend.
lug one to another as full faith and
creolt as they like, but the practical eff
fect OF the decision is that people who
nave property and children will not
take the risks of divorce in one state
oelng overthrow in another on account
OF the lack of jurisdiction over both
parties This is where the divorce col
ony goes out of business. A safe leoa1
separation will have necessarily to, be
the decree Of a court having iurisdic.
tion OF both parties. How this will
work out where the husband or wife de.
serts and disappears to what iurisdic.
ton no one knows, perhaps the 1awvere
can tell
! Whatever other effect the supreme
court $ decision may have, it comes as s
healthful tonic at time when the prev
alence OF divorce and the ease with
which it is obtained have become = ma
tlonal scandal. It will give an i'm
petus to the discussion of practica
means OF minimizing an evil which the
courts have too complacently tolerated
presumably Mr.. Towne approves Of the
presidents recommendations to congress
II as MI Towne claims, they wer,
hlched'' from the democratic platform
Yet Mr.. Towne does not approve of TIN
president. If the president does what :
great and enlightened democracy wante,
done, is not he a benefactor? Is Shaks
pere any the less. a great poet because. HI
did not invent the plots of his plays? 1
the president any the less Statesman
because he may have received the sug