Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-02-27

trickery. no collision, no binding Of the
eyes OF justice. The courts are not cor
rupt. In each case the first divorce was
regularly granted according TO the set
tied laws Of each State involved.
Fate took Mrs. Ransom back to New
YORK. Then her first husband, wholly
divorced by her in the State OF her birth.
brought suit in the New York courts
AGAINST her for an absolute divorce.
Upon what grounds? Upon the ground,
her divorce being invalid, her second
husband, therefore, was not her second
hnsband-that she was living with him.
This contention OF the first husband was
held correct, and the courts OF New
York. following the Haddock case, gave
the first husband divorce.
Now note the most peculiar thing OF
all. Each State. New York included
and by each State Is meant each State
in the UniOn-provides this peculiar
method OF serving by publication and
mailing where personal service cannot
be made within the limits OF the State
Each State recognizes its own judg-
mentS or DEGREES granted upon such
substituted service but one State will
not recognize the decree OF divorce of
another State based upon said method,
and the United States Supreme Court
has practically made the law for all the
States.
And the grim and CHASTITY joke OF It
all is this: That the State Of New York
or any other State-may, and in fact
does. grant DEGREES OF divorce based up
on orders of publication, and I'm and by
those very same DEGREES holds previous
judgment Of divorce GRANTED by another
State) invalid, solely because based upon
service of process pursuant to an order
of publication.
BY no means IS 1t true that every d.
vorce granted upon an order Of publica-
tion is invalid, even in another State.
Many cases are contested cases, and
where defendant contests he or she
becomes subject to the jurisdiction Of
the court Cases not contested, but
where an appearance is entered by an
attorney for a defendant, also operate
to give the court jurisdiction. In fact,
there can be no clearer case Of jurisdic-
ton obtained over a defendant than when
defendant voluntarily appears in an
action by an attorney or solicitor. So
that a contested divorce, where the
plaintiff is successful, Is valid in every
State, speaking generally. and so Is a
decree Of divorce In an action where an
appearance has been entered
The difficulty is with the vast major
ity OF uncontestcd cases. TO the lay
mind decree obtained in case where
the defendant utterly fails to appear and
answer-wherc he allows the suit to 90
absolutely by default-appears to be an
invulnerable kind Of decree. On the
contrary. however, that is the divorce
decree which must be scrutinized with
care. 1t is not at all n question as TO
whether the defendant is guilty of the
oifense charged or whether by his 81
lence he admits his guilt The uues-
ton is whether he has been subjected to
the jurisdiction Of the court, for no iudr-
ment can be entered against n man in
any court unless he has had served upon
him legal process and has had an on
portunity to defend if he so desires.
Can this woful condition Of affairs be
remcdicd? VIII every State in time
adopt the same grounds for divorce
will the question OF divorce become a
matter for the courts of the United
States-the Federal tribunals?
That is the question. That Is why the
President appointed the National Divorce
Commission.