New Britain herald., 1930-01-08
SAND IN THE DIVORCE
 MACHINERY

MAOHJNE
 That the judicial mind in Con necticut has been looking askance at what are popularly termed rapid fire divorces has been generally con- ceded. There have been articles in the public prints regarding the pos sibility of non-reCognition of di- vorces obtained in Yucatan or in Mexico generally; even Paris di- vorces have received frowns in Connecticut; and now the divorce in dustry in Nevada is before the Nut meg spotlight with more than usual brilliance.
 The system Of one sovereign state refusing to recognize divorce granted by another sovereign state provides many angles Of thought some Of them not reassuring in their implications, It is taken for granted that many individuals set up d temporary residence in easy-diVorce states for no other purpose than to be granted a divorce. Once that IS obtained they usually return to their home states. sometimes marrying again before they get there. If they face judicial difficulties the compi- cations at least are considerable.
 In the absence of a uniform d. vorce law throughout the 4S states and the District of Columbia and the insular possessions, there will be some states with easier divorce pro- cedurcs than others, and those with the more difficult procedures will always be in position to take uln- hrape at the easier methods of the others. No sovereign state, 1t ap- pears. is bound to recognize what another sovereign state does in the premises; and at the present writing there seems to be no inclination in Nevada and other easy-dlVorcc states to care particularly what the other sovereign states think Of Its met hods. The ensuing situation might be termed one of chaos.
 There are other implications. One ideal, held by groups of citizens l is that divorce should be made more difficult. We are not prepared tc argue about this point; but it is a subject of legal knowledge that there are ways to obtain diVorces IT even the strictcst of states. The dl- vorce law in New York is strict, for | instance; yet the divorce decreeS granted there are numerous 4 member of the New York bar stated some time ago that perjury is ar outstanding feature Of this stric system, especially in cases where couples are agreed upon dlVOrcoS Deliberate moral lapscs in order t' qualify for divorce was also men toned as being stimulated unde the circumstances. Of course. ther usually is alimony and similar pay mcnts attached; but as a majorlt of the divorce seekers are amonj the wealthy this is a mere incident
 America today is a nation with
 high divorce rate Even in COmccjI cut, where the marital relation more strictly in compliance Wit ancient convention than in som other states, the latest marriage divore figures provided by the gov ernment (year 192O shows 1,42 divorccs to 12,GG3 marriages tha year. This means approximately on marriage out Of every nine went 0 the rocks. In that year there W"r approXim ltely 5,b00 divorces in Ne' York and more than 10000 i Michigan. the latter state shoWin the amazing record of one divorc for every third or fourth marriage Only in one state. South Carolini are divorces not permitted at all; bt that does not mean that Sout Carolinians do not indulge in q vorccs. Perhaps they go to Michiga
 or to Nevada for a spell. rcturnin 10 their native states to have tn divorces recognized" or not as tn . courts see fit,
 The divorce records in Nevada, ( course, interest many. Well. in 192