The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-08-06
NAT GOODWIN, ILLUSTRATIVE.

| NAT GOODWIN, 1ILUSTRATlVE-
An item in an Eastern contemporary
using the latest of the Nat Goodwin
divorces as an illustration, has the fol
lowing:
Now that Edna Goodrich has finally got
| her divorce, Nat Goodwin is debarred
| from marrying in the State of New York
while she lives but he can marry any
where where else u ne finds beauty .e;m who Is
nized in New York State. All OF which
illustrates the need OF uniform divorce
laws.
1t is an apt illustration, and rein
forces powerfully the plea that the
jurisdiction of Congress should be ex-
tended TO cover marriages and divorces,
Nat Goodwin is barred from marrying
in the State Of New York But he may
marry in another State II married in
some other State, and he should go to
New York with his new wife, he might
be subject to arrest for bigamy, and
tho wife to arrest for adultery. And
yet it Is only In New York that these
penalties could attach.
1t is both q ridiculous and a shame
full state of affairs to have such case
in actuality in modern civilized coun-
try. But the Goodwin case Is by no
means alone. AS we have illustrated
heretofore, man might be married in
New York, divorced in Connecticut,
and the Connecticut divorce be held
illegal in New York. He could there
fore still be married to his wife in
New York, and would be at liberty to
marry a new wife in Connecticut,
Again, he could be divorced in New
Jersey and New York would refuse to
recognize the New Jersey divorce, but
he could be married legally again in
New Jersey. He would then have legal
wives, one each in New Jersey, New
York and Connecticut, each one pro-
tected in the State which recognized
the divorce and the new marriage, and
unlawful in each of the other States.
1t is common enough to have one State
refuse to recognize a divorce granted
in another. Thus confusion is made
general, and the whole Nation is under
reproach because of it.
The item quoted above states that
the Goodwin case illustrates the need
of uniform divorce laws, evidently con-
templating this uniformity as among
the States; but it is impossible to get
the States to pass uniform marriage and
divorce laws. There are States, as In"
diana for long time, and then South
Dakota, and now Nevada, which pander
to the divorce "business, and make
divorce easy by law. To be sure, these
divorces are subject to discouragment
because of their being sometimes de.
clared illegal in the courts Of other
States; but those seeking the divorces
take the risk of that, in spite of the
general moral confusion which results
There being no hope of uniform State
legislation on this question, the only
thing to do is to empower Congress to
take jurisdiction Of the whole question,
and this empowering would also have
the international advantage of giving
American marriages legal and inter
national standing all over the world,
which they now lack. They possess no
such standing now, because the United
States has no jurisdiction over mar
riages and divorces, and the State
which has such jurisdiction has no in
ternational relations. And thus we are
hung up at a disadvantage in this mat
ter as compared with every other ma
tion in the world.
1t is time we got into line and gaye
jurisdiction to Congress in this mat
ter, in order to secure uniformity in
the marriage and divorce laws of this
country, and to give American mar.
riages the international standing and
protection which every other nation as
sures to the marriages solemnized
within it's jurisdiction.