The Washington herald., 1910-02-13
BAN ON DIVORCE TESTIMONY
Influential Movement in Great Britain Australia and in This
Country to Restrict It's Publication.

Iof popular sentiment is averse TO the
publication OF unsavory testimony in di-
vorce suits, is rendered evident by the
fact that in the three countries concerned
the national government and Parliament
have been compelled to embark upon a
very serious consideration OF the problem.
That there is craving for these details,
no one who has been connected in any
editorial capacity with great newspapers
can deny But it is an unwholesome
craving; one Of those cravings to which
people viii yield in their weaker mo-
ments. but that do not as a rule care TO
avow, and which they regret upon ma
ture reflection.
There is really no reason why this crav-
ing, Sch as it is, should be satisfied.
Marriage is a contract between individ-
uais over which the State exercises super
vision only just so far as TO prevent any
fraud IN connection with the agreement
and the violation Of the laws concerning
iconsangmnity. To the maintenance of
/ this supervision the public announcement
Of the marriage is Indispensable.
Public Wants News.
But the mere announcement sufiices,
and II is not Of any utility to public
welfare that the details OF the wedding,
! or any OF the facts concerning the begin
ming or the progress OF the courtship.
should he printed The divorce consti-
tutes dissolution Of the marriage con-
tract and requires to be placed on public
record in the same way and for the
same reasons as the marriage itself.
But ali the circumstances which have led
UP TO the breaking Of the. contract are
just as little Of the pubIics businss as the
making thereof.
The lord chief justice OF England. who.
both as attorney general OF the Crown,
under the name Of Sir Richard Webster,
and aflerWsrd as Lord Alverstene, has
been a frequent visitor to this country.
and has been concerned in almost every
one OF the differences between England
and the United States that have been
settled by friendly arbitration, is one OF
the most vigorous champions OF the re-
striction by law Of the publication of the
details Of evidence in divorce suits.
He urges that nothing should be print
cd beyond the names Of the parties, which
latter should be made public in the>inter-
ests Of justice. He denounces the publ
cation in detail Of the proceedings in the
divorce court as a popular evil and de-
clares that his experience on the bench.
aid more especially his twelve years
tenure Of the office Of attorney general,
/ when he was by virtue thereof in control
or the work Of the Kings proctor. have
/ convinced him that the harm resulting
| from the publication is beyond all con-
ception and simply incalculable.
Can Dissolve Marriages.
In these views he is supported by most
Of his colleagues Ola the bench. and in
/ particular by Lord GoreT. who for 50
many years presided over the divorce
court in London. that court which alone
( IN England has the power 10 dissolve
marriages. For. differing from the sys-
TEN in those States Of America where d.
vCrce exists and where il can be obtained
/ in any county, the divorce court in Lon
don alone is competent 10 deal with mat
rimonial suits in England. Even English
/ people resident in India and in the Crown
colonies are compelled 10 appeal 20 the
court in London in the event Of their re-
curing judicial separations or absolute
divorce.
1t has been argued that the publication
OF divorce court evidence has the effect
OF lettering people from embarking upon
matrimonial lawsuits. and that regard for
the honor OF the name and for the chill