Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1922-03-25
Report Of the Committee OF Seven to
The Bar Association of Alexan-
dria, Virginia.

ne Bar ASSOCIATION Ol HiSAdii-
dria, Virginia.
Your committee, appointed by the
Bar Association of Alexandria, Vir-
ginia, to enquire into the report on
the alleged evils of the divorce sltua-
ton, in Alexandria, Virginia, beg to
report as follows:
THAT Howard W. Smith was
made chairman of your committee,
and J. Randall Cation Secretary.
o---That J. Randall Cation, G. Keith
Carlin, and Howard w. Smith were
appointed subcommittee to. exa-
mine the records Of the Corporation
Court of Alexandria. during the time
Honorable Robinson MoHcure has been
Judge therof, so far as divorce suits
are concerned.
a.-That said subcommittee devot-
ed great deal of time to the eX-
animation of the records in said dl-
Vorce cases.
They reported that in the Corpora
ton Court of Alexandria, since Judge
Robinson Moncure has been Judge
thereof, during a period OF about
twenty months to the present time
eight hundred and seven divorce suits
were finally disposed of. and that
there are one hundred and ninety
three cases pending in said court,
still undetermined.
A.-Your committee examined the
records in said divorce cases, and with
particular care, certain records IN
said divorce eases, to which the at
tenton of your committee was special
ly called by said subcommittee.
Your full committee heard ora!
appeared before your committee, and
testimony from certain witnesses, who
your committee further report that
there were other witnesses, who ap-
pearcd before your committee, but
who refused to testify.
5.-Your committee further report
inquiry, which they were appointed to
that they enlarged the scope OF the
make, and permitted witnesses to
state anything they desired concern
ing the administration Of the courts
in Alexandria.
G.-After examination of said re-
cords, ard hearing oral testimony
from all witnesses, who appeared be-
fore your committee, your commit
tee heard oral argument, Frank Stuart
of Alexandria, appearing as prosecu-
tor. and John S. Barbour, of Fairfax,
Virginia, appearing IS attorney for
Honorable Robinson Moncure, Judge
of the Corporation Court of AleXan-
dria.
7.-After consideration OF said oral
testimony. and said records, and said
arguments of counsel, your committee
submitted the following findings:
Divorce Situation
Making due allowance for the sit
uation of our City on the north edge
Of the State, and its easy accessibility
to large City, the National Capital,
where adultry is practically the only
ground for absolute divorce. yet the
number of divorces steadily ;ncrcas-
ing in the last two years, is utterly
astounding.
Practically the same law relating
to divorces has existed in Virginia for
years. There was but one substaa-
tial change in the Code Of 1919. which
went into effect January Is, 1920,
That change was in allowing hus-
hanG and wife to testify for or against
each other in divorce as in all other
cases.
In respect to this change. as af-
fecting divorces, the codifiers, in 4
foot note, said:
I'm order to safe guard divorce
proceedings, however, and to prevent
fraud and colluSion, Section 5l06 has
been so amended as 20 enact that no
divorce shall be granted on the un-
corroborated testimony of the part
les. or either Of Them
Section 5l05 forbids a divorce ''un-
less one of the parties has been domi-
ciled in this State for at least ono
year preceding the commencement of
the suit"
1t was the duty of the Judge of the
Court to see that DEGREES of divorce
were based on sufficient evidence, and
that the one years domiclc, togethe,
with the actual residence when suit
was brought. was established by the
evidence.
His attention was specially called
to the questionable domicile of parties
with Mrs. Baggett. who testified OF
make affidavit in his court so otter
in dovirce cases. He continued to &C.
cept Mrs. Baggett as witness.
In some cases there was only the
slightest, if any, corroborating testi
money as required by the statute.
Ir a number of the cases al! the evi
dence was taken in Washington.
Divorce Conclusion
The evidence and records did not
and do not. show any corruption. lael