Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1906-04-17
MANY STATES AFFECTED
Some Divorces Secured in Delaware
Are Among Those Which the
Court Has Rendered Void.
AN IMPORTANT RULE LAID DOWN
State Cannot Grant Divorce
When Only One Party Re-
sides in its Jurisdiction.
COURT WAS DIVIDED ON THE DECISION

As a result Of decision of the Su-
preme Court of the United States,
handed down in Washington, yester-
da,, it is estimated that more than
10000 children in this country were
stamped as illegitimate, through a
virtual annulment of thousands Of
divorces. The children thus branded
are those born of marriages, CON
tracted by divorced parties whose
divorces are annulled by the courts
decision.
The principle thus established by
the Supreme Court is that a State can
not grant a divorce when only one
party to the marriage is a resident
within its jurisdiction. A divorce
must be of such a character as to be
respected by all other States. The
decision was by vote of to 4, JUS
tices Harlan, Brewer, Brown and
Holmes dissenting. Justice White
rendered the majority opinion.
The case at issue was that Of John
W. Haddock against Harriet Had
dock. It came up on appeal from the
New York courts. The Haddocks were
married IN 1868, and the husband
claimed to have been an unwilling par
ticipant in the ceremony. He says in
his answer to the woman's complaint
that he left her Immediately after the
marriage rites we're performed, and
during all the time that has inter-
vened has seen her only three times.
In 1881 he secured a divorce in the
State Of 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 $3.50.
Tant finding was sustained by today S
decision, which held that Mrs. Had
dock was without the jurisdiction Of
the Connecticut court. Justices Brown,
Harlan and Brewer held that the di-
vorce granted in Connecticut was legal
and regular and characterized the
decision as a step backward.
Justice Holmes said he would not GO
so far as to declare that civilization
would come to an end because of the
conclusion reached by majority OF
the court, but the result of the de-
cision would be to make many chill
dren illegitimate.
The decision affects all divorces
granted in South Dakota. where one
party has gained a temporary residence
for the express purpose of securing q
separation, the other party not having
lived il. that State. In a general way
it will affect nearly all the States ir
which DEGREES are issued where notice
was served by publication, the othei
party being a nonresident OF th'
State.
Ruling that the Constitution of tn
L.I hanrt NJ, 1af faf
by the decision of the New York cour
Justice White took up the case on it
merits, saving that under any othe
conclusion than the one reached
would follow that the States who's
laws were the most lax would in effec
dominate all other States. In othe
words, any person who was married i
one State and who wished to violat
the marital obligations would be abl
y following the lines Of least resist
ance to go into the State where law
we're the most lax and there avail @
them for the severance of the marriag
tie and the destruction of the right
of the other party to the marriage cor
tract to the overthrow of the laws an
public policy of the other States an
thus it comes that to preserve the Law
full authority of all the States owe
marriage it IS essential to decide tha
ell the States have such authorit
only at the sufferance of the 9th,
States.
AS TO DELAWARE DIVORCES.
This decision will, it is believe.
affect about 40 per cent of the divorcl
granted in Delaware for "A considerab
period. Victor b. Woolley, a form,
prothonotary of New Castle count,
in reply to inquiry made by reports
OF Every Evening, this morning, sa
he thought fully that proportion woul
come under the Supreme Court ruliI
given above. This information WI