Evening star., 1948-06-10
The Divorce Evil

The Supreme Courts latest grapple with
this country's disgraceful divorce problem
is hailed as narrowing the area In which
the validity of divorces is uncertain. But
If the court has accomplished this result
it has done so at the price OF enabling
States which make business out of grant,
ing "quickie" divorces, notably Nevada
and Florida, to impose their policies on
other States which seek to maintain more
respect for the marital status.
The principal one of several decisions
returned Monday dealt with woman
named Mrs Sherrer. The SherrerS lived
in Massachusetts, and the wife induced
her husband to send her to Florida for
her health. After staying in Florida three
months-the minimum residence for dl-
vorce purposes required by the State law
she sued for divorce. The husband went
to Florida to contest the suit, although
1t does not appear the contest was
vigorous one. On November 20, 1914, Mrs.
Sherrer was granted divorce. Two days
later she married man named Phelps,
who had come down from Massachusetts,,
and on February S, 1945, she returned to
Massachusetts, with her new husband.
There was dispute about the facts, but
1t seems evident enough that Mrs. Sherrer
went to Florida for the purpose of getting
q divorce and that her residence there
was really a sham to that end, In any
event the courts of Massachusetts, found
this to be the case and refused to recog-
nize the Florida divorce.
The effect of the Supreme Courts ruling
is to overrule the Massachusetts, courts and
to enunciate the rule that where one party
to a divorce proceeding appears and con-
tests it, even though unsuccesSfuly the
decree cannot thereafter be attacked in
any collateral proceeding in another State.
This means that the State of MaSSachu-
sets, in which these people really lived,
is forced to abandon its policy designed to
stabilize marriage in favor of Florida's
policy of granting quick and easy divorces
The practical result of this ruling, in the
words of Justice Frankfurter's dissent,
will be to offer new inducements for con-
duct by parties and counsel, which, in
any other type of litigation. would be
regarded as perjury, but which is not so
regarded where divorce is involved because
ladies and gentlemen indulge in it."
But perjury in collusive divorce proceed
ings is not the sole or the most disturbing
consequence of the stand which the
Supreme Court has taken For Chief
Justice Vinson, writing the majority
opinion, said: "In resolving the issues
here presented, we do not conceive it to
be part of our function to weigh the
relative merits of the policies of Florida
and Massachusetts, with respect to divorce
and related matters"
In other words, the function of the
court is to interpret and apply the law,
and not to concern itself with the impact
of it's decisions on our social structure. 1t
may be said that in other fields than
divorce the court has not always been so
Indifferent to the social consequences of
its rulings, but whether that is true or
not the position taken by the Chief Justice
is consistent with the traditional view of
what the courts function should be.
This does not alter the fact, however,
that some one should be concerned with
what the. Journal of the American Judica-