Evening journal., 1906-11-15
ADOPT UNIFORM
DIVORCE BILL
Statute Permits Divorce For
Adultery, Bieamy, Crime,
Drunkenness, Insanity
TO GO TO LEGISLATURES


sanctity in marriage that should con
sent Ito its PROCLAMATION. 1 see no reason
why a divorce should not be granted Tor
refined cruelty that is sometimes TAR more
deadly than that in which actual physical
force is used and injury inflicted" said
I. j. Murray, OF Missouri, during the con-
sideratlon of Paragraph d, Article OF the
proposed uniform divorce law yesterday
This paragraph. which included among
its reasons for divorce extreme cruelty
such as to endanger life and health in the
first part, and indignitios making life bur-
densome in the second, caused one of tho
most exhaustive debates that have so far
attracted the interest aud attention OF the
delegates.
Inasmuch as the latter part Of similar
paragraph in the preceding article had
been eliminated, it was moved that a
similar course be pursued in this case
This motion was based upon the facts
that in the first place lt was placed in the
paragraph in excess Of the authority con-
ferred upon the committee at the Wash
ington congress, but its retention wou'o
make a difference between the causes for
the two kinds Of divorce, which It Is the
aim to have alike.
1T is clear" continued Mr.. Murray,
that the reasons for divorce a vnculo
and a mensa should be the same. The
words extreme cruelty should include
such indignities. and the use OF both
terms would differenuate and preclude
the courts from giving them such con-
struction. The courts should be allowed
10 give extreme cruelty that construction
that admits indignities."
Charles +. Libby, Of Maine, Thought
that the congress would make mistak,
in attempting TO define extreme cruelty
j think he said, that it will be safe ts
leave the Interpretation to the courts.
There are, indeed. refined tortures that
to a sensitive nature are the extreme Of
cruelty. to which even physical brutality
might be preferable. Extreme cruelty VIII
DO interpreted from a mental as welt as a
physical standpoint
Judge Taylor, Of Missouri, and Vice
Chancellor Emery. Of New Jersey. had a
lengthy debate on the subject leading a
| general discussion, the outcome Of wnict
was the striking out Of the latter part o,
the paragraph in accord with the CORE
spending paragraph in the article relatfn
TO divorce a vinculo. The vote was 15 to s
/ States.
Alfred wolcott, Of Michigan. moved IN,
addition Of the words "or life intoler
able" to the amended paragraph. but th'
motion was lost.
insanity Applies to Both.
There was some objection to the cause
Hopeless Insanity Of the Husband" IN,
belief being stated that It should app;
to the wife as well. But Walter Cieorgi
Smith explained that the wife was Away
entitled to the support of her husband
and he must pay for her maintenance 1
case Of her insanity. Objection was with
drawn
Mr.. Terry. of New York objected 10 TN
clause in paragraph o. 'Bigamy. at tn
suit Of the innocent and injured party [,
the first marriage" He desired this TO b.
extended. What about the man or wo
man who innocently commits bigamy
and when he or she learns the trutl
wishes TO rectify the mistaken 1 thinl
there should be provision made for sucl
cases"
The paragraph. however after some d!s
cussion, was retained intact.
The consideration Of paragraph B. sec
ton T. article C, relating to iurisdlctiop
resulted in spirited debate. brough
about by the introduction OF an amend
ment by DR.. Caroline Bartlett Crane. o.
Michigan.
The original paragraph read:
When, since the cause Of action arose
either party has become. and for at Ieas
two years next preceding the commence
l ment Of the action has continued 70 be ,
bona fide resident Of this State. Provided
the cause of action was recognized in IN,
jurisdiction in which such party resided al
the time the cause Of action arose. as
ground for the same relief asked for n
the action in this State
while opposed to migratory divorce.
said DR.. Crane Il think that the adoptio,
of this paragraph would work a great I'm.
justice to many women. The law give,
the husband the exclusive right of STATING
where home shall be- the wife must fol.
low. In the event of differences arising
o man can go to distant State and cal
upon his wife TO follow him at every sac
rihce, and her refusal to do 50 Is. consid.
cred by the law as desertion
But should she take him at his word
and go and should his treatment be so in.
tolerable that she fees to the protection
of her old home, she should have the priv
ilege of applying for divorce in the Stat,
in which her parents live and in which
she has elected to live. We have such a
case in our State at the present time. A
good woman has been compelled to return
to her home because her husband wa.
guilty OF offenses that were committed Il
another State, but because they were no
committed in Michigan, she is helpless.
speak in the name Of abused and wrongec
and helpless women.
Il therefore move the adoption of thi.
amendment to the paragraph. To add
"And provided further that the injured
wife. having returned TO her ante-nuptia
domicile. may be granted relief according
to the laws of such domlclle"
Strong argument for and against tn
proposed amendment were made the con
tention Of the opponents being, first. tha
it's adoption might open the door 10 many
abuses, and, second, that it would requir,
a general revision OF the entire law as re
lated to jurisdiction. Mrs. Crane ably an,
vigorously championed her amendment.
"To adopt IT," said Judge Taylor. woult
be to give an advantage to the women
when it is the purpose to make the Law
impartial"
1T is for this that am contending." re