Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1922-03-25
Report of Mr. Cation

hepOEt vi WI Saaoi
To the Members of the Alexandria
Bar:
| thoroughly subscribe to the con-
customs Of your committees herewith
transmitted to you. However | desire
to make additional recommendations
and observations in the, nature OF 4
supplemental report, and therefore
respectfully submit my report IN
full, so that these recommendations
and observations may be set out IN
detail with my reasons therefor.
This Committee was delegated by
the members of the Alexandria Bar
70 investigate the divorce situation
in the city of Alexandria. During
the progress of our hearing, this
committee broadened the scope of its
inquiry, and permitted evidence to
be introduced in regard to matters
not necessarily pertinent to the
primary purposes Of our investlga>
ton. However, as the others are of
Importance 70 the integrity Of the
Court and Bar, ] shall express my
conclusions in all matters heard be-
fore us.
First, with reference to the divorce
situation. Evidence was presented to
the committee through two sources,
One from oral testimony, and two,
from the court records. As to the
newspaper articles, it was determ.
ined by this committee not to consld
er them as evidence in the absence
Of proof sustaining their charges.
One: The oral testimony threw
practically no light upon the d.
vorce situation, and for the most
part consisted Of matters absolutely
irrelevant thereto A few witnesses
related their experiences with the
court, but | 10 not consider their
evidence in anyway bears upon the
real situation under investigation.
Certainly their testimony alone does
not convince me that they have
been in anyway aggrieved by the
action of the court or that the court
abused its prerogative OF office or
went beyond what was the courts
conception of the fair and right thing
under the circumstances. There was
only one ase in which there was posi-
tive testimony by witness tending
to show fraud. This was the Wright
case, but the value Of this wit
nesses's testimony 10 my mind, was
entirely discounted by the unques>
tionable perjury of the witness HIM
self.
Two We come now to the court
records, which were tabulatcd by a
subcommittee of three, ard which
report in It's final form is before
this committee. and has been pub
lishcd in the public press. This re-
port shows that there have been S07
divorce suits finally disposed of in
The period between May 22nd, 1920,
and February 1St, 1922, and that
at the time Of filing the said report
there were pending 1913 cases. The
conclusion is inevitable from these
records that there is a divorce evil
in the city of Alexandria. An cx-
animation Of the records makes il
plain that only about ten per cent
Of these cases are actual Nirginians
and legitimatcly entitled to the re-
lief asked for and granted. It is un>
mitakably clear that the other cases
consit Of non residents who camc
TO Alexandria for the purpose Of
Obtaining a divorce, and not with
the bona fide intention Of making
Virginia their permanent domicile
How many of these latter cases even
technically complied with the Vir-
gna law by. domicile of one year
prior to institution Of the suit, and
how many were instituted with utter
disregard Of this requirement Of law
I am unable to say. But the records
force upon me the conviction that
many suits have been instituted with
out any regard to the requirements
Of domicilc and residence, and that
DEGREES have been granted in cases
where the law has not been complied
with. Our report shows that Ger
tain witnesses have testified to the
residence of the complainants in
divorce suits far beyond the realm
Of belief. Because of the great
number of times that they have testi
fed, their statements cannot IL ac-
cepted as true, and in a great num-
Der Of cases must be considered as
absolutely false. The record is filled
with the dispositions Of professional
residence witnesses, people who have
testified in ten or more cases COW
cred by the period of our report,
thus evidencing to my mind that a
divorce colony became centered in
those places where there was the
apparent willingness to make ar
agreeable deposition concerning
domicile and residence.
Where the record shows according
to the testimony of one witness that
an average Of 120 people would be
living or residing at certain house
for a period of six months. and
that house is one with about ten
rooms, the conclusion necessarily
follows that such situation is ply
sically impossible further believe
that the same conclusion is incvita.
BILE even in those cases where our
tabulation shows that an average OF
twenty or more persons resided IN
one place for any certain period.
Being physically impossible, the
conclusion is that it is untrue; and
if untrue it necessarily follows that
the persons making such affiuavlts
must have known it was untrue. |
further believe that those attorneys
who have used these residence wit
in moro instances