The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1924-07-11
EXPOSE LIMITS
ALEXANDRIA
DIVORCES
Years Official Figures Show
Drop From 554 to
167 Cases
By JOEPHINE TIGHE.

There were 2,763 divorces granted
in the State Of Virginia in 1923.
These figures were today supplied
by DIR. w. A. Picker, director of
the Virginia State Bureau of Vital
Statistics in his annual report just
issued.
In view of the fight begun four
years ago, against the Get.Divorced.
Quick practices obtaining in Alexan-
dria city and in Virginia counties
adjacent to the District of Colum.
bia, an analysis of DR.. Plecker's
figures is interesting.
THE year 1920 was the worst in
the history Of Virginia with regard
to DIVORCE" declares DIR. Picker,
for in that year the peak was
reached with 1880 divorces granted
in the State" 1t was in this period
that the expose by The Washington
Times caused an immense stir in
Washington, sent certain lawyers
to cover and resulted in the sub
sequent retirement Of judge.
The table issued yesterday by DR.
Picker reads, Alexandria shows
decline from 584 in 1921, and 202
in 1922, to 1877 in 1929" which is
rather pretty proof that the glare
OF publicity on the marital mares
nest had excellent effect.
A little farther down in the
Picker report it is found that
while Alexandria showed decrease
In the number of divorces granted
Arlington county increased from 81
in 1922 to 123 in 1923, while Fair,
fax coAnty jumped from So to sc
in the same period.
Has Committee Appointed.
In the latter part Of May, 1923,
Judge Samuel P. Brent, of the cir.
cult court of Virginia, called a halt
in Arlington and Fairfax counties.
which are within his jurisdiction.
In his charge to the June grand
jury of Arlington county Judge
Brent displayed a stop signal by
calling the jurors attention to the
fast increasing divorce menace in
Arlington county. Three days later
he repeated this warning at Fair
fax Court House in his charge to
the grand jury of that county.
Complete exposure Of conditions in
Arlington and Fairfax was made
and the names Of all parties ap-
plying for divorce in 1929, to-
gether with the lawyers represent.
ing the cases, were published.
Judge Brent's charge to the
Arlington grand jury resulted in
its directing the appointment of a
committee Of three lawyers to in
vestigate conditions. The three men
appointed were Honorable Frank l..
Ball, Judge William c. Cloth and
Judge H. r. Thomas, who went
thoroughly into the matter and at
the October term Of court, 1928, pre-
sented recommendation the gist of
which was, THAT all testimony as
to residence Of the parties in divorce
cases be taken orr tenus in open
court"
The ''ori tenus" made It necessary
for all witnesses testifying as To
residence of the parties in divorce
action to appear personally in court
and give testimony. This word-of.
mouth testimony is easily followed
up and IL found to be false perjury
and contempt proceedings may be
entered against witnesses falsely
swearing. The vital statistic report
Of next July show exactly in what
effect Judge Brent's initiative has
resulted.
Lawyers Back On job.
The counties showing marked IN.
crease in divorce granted in Vir.
ginia in 1928 include Fauquier. II
to %; Prince William, IL to IS,
Loudoun, to 16. These three
counties adjoin those of Fairfax and
Arlington and it is known that the
lawyers whose names figured most
prominently in the investigations
made by The Washington Times in
Alexandria city, Fairfax and Airing,
ton counties are now operating in
Prince William, Fauquier and
Clarke.
The figures given m the vital
statistics table are soley of divorces
granted, not those filed. In
Arlington county alone, the small.
est county in the United States,
265 divorce cases were spread on
the docket from the first day of
January, 1923. to June 16 of the
same year. Many Of the cases are
still pending.