DIVORCES IN THE UNITED STATES.

BY CHAS. H. HART.

This somewhat pretentious subject was not selected in the hope of presenting in one short paper all that this general title might easily suggest; but the thought was to call attention to some of the many differences between the statutes and decisions of our several states in divorce matters, with the view of thus emphasizing the necessity of a unification of our state laws on this subject in particular.

Much has been said of late years of the evils growing out of a conflict of laws on such subjects as bills and notes, execution of wills, probate of foreign wills, succession, acknowledgements of written instruments, transfers of real property, marriage and divorce. The last subject is one of special importance. The marriage relation is the most important of all human relations. If it be desirable to know the exact nature of ones contract and property rights, how much greater is the need of knowing ones marriage status? Under the necessary but absurd fiction that every one is supposed to know the law, an otherwise innocent woman after years of supposed married life may suddenly be awakened to the realization that she is guilty of polygamy, that she has been living in adultery and that her children are illegitimate.

There is a wide divergence between the laws of European countries and those of our own states, not only on the

subject of divorce, but also on the subject of conflict of laws (an important part of which grows out of divorces). This difference in conflict of laws between the American and European decisions is partly attributable to the full faith and credit rule of the Federal Constitution. In Professor Dicey's book on the Conflict of Laws he gives the English law on the subject and a brief digest of the American cases with the explanation in the preface that "This review of American cases will be, it is hoped, whilst of practical utility to American, of considerable interest to English lawyers, thus indicating the divergence between the decisions of the two countries. As to peculiarities in divorce laws on the continent, it may be noted in passing that prior to the year 1858 an absolute judicial divorce was for many years unknown to the law of England. Spain permits no divorce for any cause, neither will her judges recognize a divorce by other countries of Spanish subjects. By the law of France and also Belgium the right of, and causes for, divorce of a foreigner residing in either of those countries would depend upon the laws of his own country and not upon the laws of either of those countries where he might be actually domiciled. While in the United States in the absence of statute it is the well established and almost unanimously recognized rule that the right to a divorce depends upon the law of the present domicile and not upon either the place where the marriage was contracted or the place where the marital offense was committed; yet in England while there are some decisions to this effect it can not yet be said (according to Mr. Bishop) that this doctrine is now fully or fairly established in that country.

The Wutemberg-Illinois case attempted to be carried upon appeal from Illinois to the Supreme Court of the United States (see Roth vs. Ehman 107 U. S. and Roth vs. Roth 104 Ill.,) is interesting as showing the liberality

of one our states when compared with a foreign country. Subjects of Wurtemberg married in Illinois without the consent of the King. The marriage was valid in Illinois, but upon the return of the couple to Wurtemberg the marriage was annuled for want of the King's consent to the marriage. The validity of this decree then came before the courts of Illinois and the Supreme Court of that state upheld the foreign decree. Wurtemberg would not recognize an Illinois marriage but Illinois recognized the Wurtemberg divorce of the same parties.

DIVORCE STATUTES.

The divorce statutes in the different states are in many respects much alike. With the exception of South Carolina, which permits no divorce for any cause, and New York which, following the teachings of Christ on the Mount, permits absolute divorce for adultery only, and Louisiana, which divorces absolutely only for adultery and felony, the states generally authorize divorce on substantially the same grounds as in Utah. There is a great variety of language used however in naming these several grounds. This difference of language is not worthy of any extended notice here. Most of the states do not prescribe any length of time that the "drunkenness" or "failure to provide" must have continued or the length of time of "sentence to imprisonment" of defendant in order to authorize a divorce. In Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Vermont and Wisconsin the term of imprisonment to warrant a divorce is named at from two to five years and upwards. In Connecticut life imprisonment is required. The length of time of drunkenness is placed by Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota and Wisconsin at one year; Nebraska and Ohio at three years and Illinois at two years. Failure to provide must have continued for

one year in Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, North and South Dakota and Wyoming. Arkansas specifies six months. The period of desertion is fixed by various states as follows: Six months, Arkansas; one year, Colorado; Idaho, Indian Territory, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming; two years, Alabama, District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Tennessee; and three years, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont and West Virginia; and five years, Virginia. A more interesting feature of these statutes is the length of time of residence before the plaintiff is entitled to sue for divorce. With certain exceptions in some of the states in instances where the marriage took place in the state, or the offense was committed in the state, or out of the state while the plaintiff was residing in the state, the plaintiff is required by the following states to have been a resident for the time indicated below: Three years, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts and New Jersey; two years, Indiana, Maryland and Tennessee; one year, Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Oregon, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Utah; six months, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming; and ninety days (be it said to their shame), North Dakota and Oklahoma. Pregnancy of the wife at the time of marriage by some one other than the husband, the husband being ignorant of the fact of such pregnancy, is ground for divorce in North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wyoming. A divorce a mensa et thoro is recognized and provided for by statute in Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan,