The Irish standard., 1906-04-21
A JoLTTo DIVORCE.

| without puDllClty, mas been given q Sc
we're jolt by the supreme court of the
United States. In !: case which prom
Uses to be better known than any 9th
er case ever decided the highest trib-
unal of the land. by divided court,
it is true. has decided that divorces OBJ
tanned in one state where the defend
ant resides in another state and where
the court which grants the divorce has
no jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant, are not entitled to be re-
spccted by the courts of any other
state than that of the one granting the
decree. The supreme court of the
United States now holds that the pro-
ed States which provides that full faith
and. credit" shall be given by each, state
to the judgments and DEGREES of cv-
cry other state does not apply to judg-
ments and DEGREES of divorce secured
by substituted service as by publica-
lion in Il newspaper. The decision JUS:
rendered means that any judgment of
divorce rendered in any state where
no personal service has been made
upon the defendant i. not entitled in
and of itself to recognition as a yali'
1t does not necessarily mean that such
II Judgment may not be given full
force and credit in other states. 1t
simply means that other states are not
compelled to give it full force and
credit. We think that the decision is
Il step in the right direction. 1t is
abhOrcnt to our mind to think that n
defendant should be bound by a judg-
ment in an action in which he never
had any notice. And that too, in an
fiction which 10 matter what NAV be
the fiction INDUCED in ny different
courts is an action purely i'm personcm.
An action for divorce in Il legal way
is entirely different from am action to
collect II debt against Il nonresident
where that non resident has property
i'm the state over which the court has
| jurisdiction und which the court has
seized. In an action for divorce where
the defendant is a nonresident there
is nothing over which the court has
jurisdiction except the plaintiff. 1t is
most extraordinary stretch of the
common law conception of due process
OF law To consider that Il defendant in
Il default divorce action has been
served With due process of law. The
decision of the supreme court of the
! United States will make it much more
difficult to secure divorces. If some of
the states still continue To recognize
as valid judgments. divorces granted
where no service has been made upon
the defendant except by substitution
more announcement to he II divorced
person under such circumstances, If
such II divorced person should rt-mlr-
ny nl,d then visit :, state which would
refuse /" recognize such IL Judgment
the divorced party remarked would he
in Il most dangerous condition. Peo-
pie securing such divorces in Mime
sofa in order to be absolutely safe in
the future will be compelled to re-
main in Minnesota. The case Just de-
cded by the supreme court was "A
case where Il divorce was granted to
the husband in the state of Connecti-
cut in 1881. In the following wear he
instituted proceedings in the New York
courts against her former husband who
seems to have in the meantime become
Il citizen of New York and the courts
of New York declare the second mar
riage ceremony illegal and dccreed the
first Wife still to be the legal wife. and
directed the husband to pay her an
annuity of seven hundred eighty dol
lars That decision has been sustained
by the supreme court of the United
States. The result of this decision un-
doubtedly will be to create an agita-
ton in favor Of Stricter divorce laws
and in favor Of some uniform national
divorce law. Such Il result would be
a long step in the right direction The
dissenting justices in the case paint
a pathetic picture of the results to
which the decision leads. Justice
Holmes in his dissenting opinion, re-
fers to the thousands of children who
have been made illegitimate. I'm
doubtcdly hardships will follow and
many Of these hardships will be visit
cd upon innocent children. but it is
the old story of the sins Of the parents
being visited upon the children. The
supreme court has not changed the
law. Il has simply stated what the
law has been at all times. The SUI
premc court should not be blamed but
the legislatures and courts of the sep
arate states should shoulder the blame
The ultimate responsibility for the H.
LEGITIMACY of the children must rest
upon the parents and not on the law.
1t is better that the children of one
generation should suffer than that this
cancer of divorce should be allowed to
continue to eat at the very vitals of
the social fabric. The matter of in
heritance of these supposedly illegiti-
mate children is an easy matter to
Iroroodv Iorcl, ,,,oopc ,.o,o