The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-04-20
A CASE IN POINT.

The Advertiser has at times called attention to the injustice of our vari- ous divorce laws as srecognised in the different States. and in a recent issue of The Brooklyn Eagle we find men tion of case which Illustrates this injustice more fully. To fully under stand the case it is necessary to bear in mind that under the laws of New York adultery is the only legal ground for divorce. Bearing this in mind. read the following:
 Mrs. Porter V. Ransom of this city left her husband and returned to her home inSvirginia. There she obtained a divorce from her New York husband for the cause recognized in this state The service on Ransom was by publi- cation, as provided by the law of Vir- ginia, but the Virginia court did not acquire that personal Jurisdiction of the defendant which our law requires The decree gave to Ramson three rec he made no move to do so. Then, after five years, Mrs. Ransom renar- ried in Virginia and bore a child by brought suit for divorce here. setting up her relations under the second mar rfage as legal cause. Justice Bowling gave Ransom a decree, because our tive. The Appellate Division has con frmed that decree because there was no legal ground on which it should be set aside.
 Here is a case of peculiar hardship and injustice. If this woman should return and make her home in New York she would, under the laws of that State. be adjudged an adultress and her child illegitimate. Yet, as will be seen from The Eagles statement she obtained what was a legal divorce in her new home and gave her former husband five years to contest the de- cree before again marrying. But that is not the most inconsistent and un- just feature of this case. When she applied for a divorce she did so for the cause recognized by the laws of New York and the Virginia court granted it. Under the New York law Ransom could only apply for divorce on the plea that his wife had been guilty of adultery, and plainly had no cause or ground for such a charge. When she remarried. however. she become an adultress under New York laws and then the husband obtained his decree of divorce, which he could not have done if the wife had not remarried.
 These are the simple facts and re- suits in this particular case. It is evil dent from the reading of the statement that the New York courts saw the un- fairness and gross injustice of this besmirching the name and reputation of an innocent woman, but they had no choice. They were bound to carry out the laws of their State. however reluctant they may have been to in- spire one who had offended without wrong intent. This case leads The Eagle to say that the demand for something approaching uniformity of divorce procedure in the various states is rapidly growing. The particular hardship of this case, with its denial of the legitimacy Of the child of the second Virginia marriage of the innocent wife should increase that sentiment and lead to legislative action here and in other states. Uniformity in causes for divorce is not to be hoped, but uni- formity of procedure. which will pre- vent marriage in one state becoming concubinage across a state line, is a necessity of civilization"